Jerusalem: Reality vs Impracticality – The Protection Racket of the Jewish State

Jerusalem: Reality vs Impracticality – The Protection Racket of the Jewish State

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:00 pm | Addendum Thursday, December 21, 2017, 11:00 pm | Addendum-II Postscript Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 1:00 am
Report Last Modified and PDF Generated Tuesday, January 30, 2018 01:00 am


The New York Times reported on Wednesday, Dec 6, 2017:
'WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and setting in motion a plan to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City. “Today we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” Mr. Trump said from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. “This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.” ... Recognizing Jerusalem, he added, was “a long overdue step to advance the peace process.” ... The announcement, officials said, was recognition of current and historic reality. West Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s government, and recognizing it as such would remove ambiguity from the American position, they said.'
During the Bush administration in 2004, the New York Times on Oct 17, 2004, had reported on the nature of this “reality” constructed by history's actors from a bizarre conversation with a senior White House official:
'In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”'
The Promised Land Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz YisraelCaption The Promised Land Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael
Well, fast forward to today, Wednesday, Dec 13, 2017, exactly one week after President Trump created the new reality vis a vis Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish state in occupied Palestine, the New York Times reported that the Muslim Leaders Declare East Jerusalem the Palestinian Capital, rightly refusing to accept the new reality created by the history's actors, but regurgitating the same old two-state narrative as scripted by the Israelis themselves for the ingestion of the beleaguered Palestinians while they piece-meal gobble up all of Palestine (and then some – see The Promised Land Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael):
'ISTANBUL — Leaders and officials of Muslim nations declared East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital on Wednesday at a summit meeting in Istanbul, producing the strongest response yet to President Trump’s decision to recognize the city as Israel’s capital. The gathering of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation was held to formulate a unified response from the Muslim world to Mr. Trump’s decision last week. ... The meeting condemned in a communiqué Mr. Trump’s “unilateral” and “dangerous declaration” as an effort to change the status of Jerusalem. It said that it considered the action a violation of United Nations resolutions and legally null and void, and that it would hold the United States liable for all consequences of not retracting its decision. ... Mr. Abbas on Wednesday told the gathering that Mr. Trump had committed the “greatest crime” with his declaration, and that the Palestinians would no longer accept any role of the United States in peace negotiations with Israel. “Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Palestine,” he said, adding that the United States was giving it away as if it were an American city. “It crosses all the red lines,” Mr. Abbas said. Mr. Erdogan urged nations of the world to recognize the state of Palestine, and declared Jerusalem as its occupied capital. He warned there would be no peace in the region unless the city’s status was recognized as such. ... Calling Israel a terrorist state, he warned that “Israel will never have any legitimacy in Jerusalem.”'
What is revealing about Trump's action as the henchman of the history's actors du jour is the rationale statement: “This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality” – a reality previously created piece-meal by other history's actors with incremental faits accomplis which have always appeared too impractical if not impossible to reverse.
What is also revealing about the reactionary declaration emanating from the distinguished Leaders and officials of Muslim nations, is that they appear to be expert parrots, rehearsing from the same old script given them as a red herring by the Jewish narrative, and which has unfortunately come to define the loudest pitch of the Palestinian struggle to date.
Other voices able to perceptively penetrate the red herrings thrown to the Palestinian and Muslim leaders continue to remain unheard. And so is the solution. The first essay below, published in February 2007, systematically dissects the red herring of reality vs impracticality, and presents what is perhaps the obvious and commonsense solution for a piece of geography that is most sacred to the followers of all three Abrahamic faiths. A geography for which the existent native inhabitants of that sacred land have been wronged, oppressed, brutalized, killed, evicted, and their land systematically colonized and occupied ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued by the previous generation of history's actors. The current generation of history's actors whose visible henchman in the White House is President Trump, is working for the same oligarchic interests that created the conditions and realities of “revolutionary times” to motivate Great Britain to grant Muslim Palestine to the Jews as if they were giving away a piece of their own land. The perceptive statement made by Mr. Abbas “that the United States was giving it away as if it were an American city”, is capturing the reality of the same Oligarchic script that Great Britain, as the dominating empire of its time, previously rehearsed from. American leaders are merely continuing the same acts as the latter day henchmen of history's actors. Mr. Trump is evidently the boldest of them all in form, but there is little difference in substance.
The oligarchy controlling the Jewish state in Palestine for its own interests, is singularly defeated in its more than hundred years long shenanigans if the world leaders sympathetic to the Palestinians, instead of parroting the Jewish narrative, demand the commonsense solution that eludes the West in its unrelenting support of the misconstruction of Israel as an apartheid state.
It is the obvious one nation-state solution for all its inhabitants. In that tight piece of geography, two nations simply cannot be constructed justly; the one with the bigger guns will always dictate the terms. And it is truly no ordinary piece of geography. It is so steeped in the history and intermingling cultures of all three Abrahamic religions that try as the transplanted European Zionists may, to obliterate the vestiges of the other two, its history and its emotional affiliations cannot be divorced from that geography. Abolishing apartheid and eliminating the racist Zionist philosophy, and replacing it with a society with secular, civil and moral laws that are based on the common moral teachings of all three religions and which treat all three peoples as equals, permitting each to practice their own faith, to hold sacred their own heritage without encroaching upon the rights of each other, is the only just solution today. That is the actual ground reality when primacy is replaced with fairness. It is also the solution that the ordinary Palestinian peoples themselves demand. It is high time the Palestinian and Muslim leaders listened, and dared to lead as history's actors in their own right. Other nations' leaders will follow suit once the singular demand is reflected by the Palestinian and Muslim leaders in their respective nation's political and military calculus, with no back-off whatever the pressure and consequence. This takes more than just honest leadership; it takes displaying the courage of one's convictions which is at least as unrelenting and forceful as the Zionists'. In time, all wounds will heal naturally, as all three Abrahamic peoples have far more in common than they have the courage to recognize and accept.
The status of Jerusalem is then naturally and organically resolved as the common sacred heritage of all three faiths. Surely some formula for administering the holy city in fairness to the peoples of all three faiths can then be devised by the citizens themselves and ratified as the fair law of the sacred land that is named in the Holy Scriptures of all three faiths as “The City of Peace”.
All this may sound Pollyannaish today just as once abolishing Apartheid in South Africa may have sounded to the oppressed natives of that land, or abolishing slavery in the United States may have sounded to the oppressed Negroes of this land. Abolishing Zionism from Palestine is no different, despite all Zionist attempts to mimic the genocidal Settlement of the Americas by the colonizing Europeans in centuries past. The second essay below, published in May 2010, looks into the oligarchic power behind the Zionist state. It outlines the struggle forward for pragmatically overturning the Machiavellian force of “impracticality” protecting the Zionist state that is making a mockery of the very name of Jerusalem. The third essay below, published on May 15, 2010 on the 62nd anniversary of the Nakba, examines the psychological cataracts which become impediments and which must first be overcome in order to forge that real struggle forward that can effectively overturn the reality of “impracticality” on the ground. The fourth and last essay below, published on November 22, 2009, gives shocking evidence of these psychological cataracts which co-opt the Palestinian leadership into parroting the Jewish narrative.

Addendum December 21, 2017

Dateline California, Thursday, December 21, 2017, 11:00 pm: With the United States of America unilaterally recognizing Zionist sovereignty over Jerusalem by brazenly announcing moving her embassy from Tel Aviv to the Holy “City of Peace” earlier this month, and with the world's nations overwhelmingly adopting a resolution this morning calling for the reversal of that recognition in the 193-nation United Nations General Assembly with 128 to 9 votes and 35 abstentions, perhaps the resolution that should be tabled in the UN ab initio, is the demand for reversing Israel's very right to exist as an Apartheid Settler state in Palestine. The time is right as president Trump has finally shaken up the status quo, which to date has only helped the Zionist resettlement of Palestine with a cowardly complacent world watching from the sidelines. Today, 128 nations found the courage to speak up for Palestine in the United Nations in a largely symbolic gesture, despite threats from President Trump to cut off their American aid. Soon, they shall also find the courage to act for Palestine.
This Open Letter from 2005 (not included in this report due to its length but essential reading), written in the Socratic style of basic commonsense questions, forces honest thinkers, specifically American philosophers and academics, who not only unquestioningly believe in Israel's right to exist as an exceptional apartheid settler state in Palestine, but also teach this belief to generations of students in high falutin academic discourses, who, in turn, also grow up believing the Jewish State to be god's exceptional design for his chosen people before which all goyem must suspend their reason and moral judgment, to rethink Israel-Palestine.

Addendum-II Postscript January 30, 2018

Dateline California, Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 1:00 am: There is evidently no moral calculus in imperial mobilization, in the exercise of primacy, regardless of which nation, people, tribe, or empire thinks it their categorical imperative to spread its hegemony (coin, values, religion, products, laws, servitude) upon the lesser nations and peoples. None are holier than thou when it comes to the categorical imperative of the jungle: “might is right”! History is evidence of this truism.
Why not just straightforwardly call a spade a spade instead of hiding behind feigned moral grounds, wrapped in god and flag, and being fcking hypocrites?
In any case, when primacy is the actual underlying standard of international rule of law behind its polished façade of International Relations and The United Nations which grants it legitimacy and legal cover, with power changing hands, or Christian values and its political alliances changing bed-fellows, the Jews, the Zionists, better watch out.
The same categorical imperative will be applied to them, and in spades, with the distinction easily overlooked!
The Jewish state already has two billion Muslims against it. Time may add another 3 billion Christians to that pool.
Which is perhaps why, in apprehension, anticipation, or just premonition, the fanatically Jewish State is making opportunistic alliances with the fanatically Hindutva of today's so called modern India, rapidly rising in the Jewish footsteps and its occupation tactics – they both intensely dislike Christians and Christianity. The fact that Jews have no love lost for Christians and Christianity, ab initio, is not particularly a state secret. It still bubbles up publicly every now and then, in different ways, some subtle: at times disguised as 'art', or prayers uttered in Hebrew which the Christian goy does not comprehend; others outright grotesque and with shameless impunity. Despite the strong desire to at least publicly suppress or camouflage that intrinsic hatred, especially by the liberal Jewry on the Left, now that the Jews are seen as such great friends with Christians, necessitating the commonsense to at least maintain some healthy illusions before the goyem. All the while, never forgetting, always remembering, the 2000 years old history living among the Christians. The paranoia is understandable. And yet, easily forgetting living peaceably and thriving for centuries among the Muslims, including their Golden Age! The ingratitude is not!
The Jews will find no friends among Muslims after what they have done to Palestine and Palestinians. Unless they reverse their inhumanity now, while they have the power to do so, to rectify the evil that their ancestors unleashed, which each subsequent generation of gun-totting Zionist-mafia has carried to ever expanding limits of barbarism. When defeated, even God may not save his “chosen peoples”.
The rules of war are explicit and categorical in the Holy Qur'an. Instead of studying it to generate the propaganda of “Islamism”, the learned Jews may consider studying it for what it actually states unequivocally, so that they can learn what's in store for them. The time for the comeuppance of every people is fixed, and none may escape their destiny. The same applies to peoples in the aggregate, to nations, to empires, to ideologies, to pathocracies.
The One State recipe outlined in this report only works when the Jews themselves embark upon it to undo the wrongs that they have committed under Zionism. A peaceful co-existence with justice and fairness beckons on the same land that the Jews had usurped with bayonet.
However, when defeated at the point of bayonet, all vestiges of Jewishness will be wiped out from Palestine. It will be returned to its Arab and Muslim heritage. And that will be the fair justice then! All the Western academic shills who now preach “Israel's right to exist” in Palestine, will be seeking new jobs, minimally.
Dream on!
This is what the Muslim mind dreams of today.
Power steeped in arrogance merely laughs at it today.
What even one man dreams in one generation, comes true in another. The existence of the Jewish state itself exemplifies that truism.
So, laugh on.

Article I
The endless trail of red herrings

Zahir Ebrahim
February 28, 2007
Footnotes March 23, 2007

In reference to the interestingly titled and revealing commentary by Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, "Facing Mecca" published by Media Monitors Network ( and picked up by several others including The Baltimore Chronicle on February 19, 2007, I wanted to pen my own humble thoughts down to suggest that the trail of red herrings is long, endless, and quite distinguished.
"Impracticality" due to the "existent reality on the ground" is often used as a fait accompli argument for any other resolution to the long festering Israel-Palestine blot on humanity for the suffering that it is needlessly inducing upon the indigenous peoples, except the much articulated two state abstract solution as theoretically dictated by the Israeli government and the key power brokers and vested interests allied to it. And even in this constricted solutions space, it is frequently used to nuance what is practicably realizable given the "existent reality on the ground", and what isn't.
While the world silently spectates the immense suffering that the occupation continues to bring upon an innocent peoples, the Israelis keep seeding the land with new reality on the ground which too then becomes "impractical" to undo and becomes new leveraging points in any subsequent peace talks - take 10 and give back 1 if the Palestinians behave, then repeat! This reality formally got constructed in 1948 and is continually being constructed as we speak, at each turn becoming impractical to undo requiring the victims to continually having to accommodate to the new reality for peace settlement, because true justice is now deemed "impractical".
An interesting argument, this "impracticality".
Or is it indeed also a deliberate deception and red herring of the kind related by the "Israeli Patriot" in "Facing Mecca"?
' The British call this a "red herring" - a smelly fish that a fugitive drags across the path in order to put the pursuing dogs off the trail.
WHEN I was young, Jewish people in Palestine used to talk about our secret weapon: the Arab refusal. Every time somebody proposed some peace plan, we relied on the Arab side to say "no". True, the Zionist leadership was against any compromise that would have frozen the existing situation and halted the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of expansion and settlement. But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and "we extend our hand for peace" - and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the proposal.
That was successful for a hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the rules, recognized Israel and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that the negotiations for the final borders between Israel and Palestine must be concluded not later than 1999. To this very day, those negotiations have not even started. Successive Israeli governments have prevented it because they were not ready under any circumstances to fix final borders. (The 2000 Camp David meeting was not a real negotiation - Ehud Barak convened it without any preparation, dictated his terms to the Palestinians and broke the dialogue off when they were refused.) [...]
The panic had immediate results: "political circles" in Jerusalem announced that they rejected the Mecca agreement out of hand. Then second thoughts set in. Shimon Peres, long established master of the "yes-but-no" method, convinced Olmert that the brazen "no" must be replaced with a more subtle "no". For this purpose, the red herring was again taken out of the freezer. '
But while Uri Avnery exposes some red herrings very eloquently and quite courageously in this article, he does not explain how the same concept was still at play even at Oslo - an unacceptable proposal in reality that no self-respecting people would have willing accepted - and that despite its unacceptability, Yasser Arafat had indeed accepted it, leading to the detachment of the late Edward Said from it eventually as the realization dawned regarding the true nature of the peace plan and he insisted that no justice could be had in peace talks between unequals (see his own words here, here, here, here).
However, the observation of "yes-but-no" method of the disingenuous Israeli peace making overtures is indeed based on empirical reality. Should I applaud this courageous activist for outright admitting it for the benefit of the American and Western audience? This reality of duplicity is quite known to the recipients of its largess, but unfortunately quite unknown to those who innocently ally themselves to the cause of Israel in the West and wonder why the Palestinians are so moronically recalcitrant to all the generous overtures by Israel and don't want peace!
Are the arguments of "impracticality" also similar red herrings that continually defy justice being brought to bear on the issue?
This is the purpose of my essay, to explore "impracticality" to achieving justice and its concomitant harvest of peace, as opposed to the continual mantra of peace with "impracticality" as impediments to reaching fair and just solutions that are as obvious and as ignored by the power brokers and their allied vested interests as a black African elephant in the ivory white bridal suite sitting right in the middle of the newlywed's bed.
Indeed, why not apply "impracticality" to all issues of injustices? It's indeed highly "impractical" to bring about a change in any status quo! That did not stop South Africa to be abolished as an apartheid state, nor did it stop severe punitive sanctions and boycotts and divestments to be imposed on it, with South Africa perennially being highlighted before the world in the press and media and by the outspoken commentators and intellectuals as a pariah state, before the abhorrent apartheid was forced to end there through the courageous struggle of its own indigenous peoples directly supported by the international community (with few exceptions, the most notable being some in the United States - see incumbent US Vice President Dick Cheney's voting record when he was in Congress on the resolution to free Nelson Mandela); and nor did it prevent the tea from being thrown overboard by a handful of patriots who are today venerated as the founders of a superpower nation. All very impractical acts as seen from the comfortable living rooms of the pundits. That is not to say that ending Apartheid has ended poverty in South Africa, or automatically created economic equity. The struggle still continues on, as it even does in the United States of America itself to create a fairer society, as one can glean from all the movements of the preceding century, Civil Rights, Labor Rights, Women's Rights, etc. But the key enabler is the tumultuous axiomatic construction of the state which must precede any incremental changes in realizing economic and social benefits. Such an axiomatic construction transpired for the United States of America by the writing of its seeding Constitution after the tea was thrown overboard, and for South Africa by outright abolishing apartheid after a long struggle where the calls for its dismantling preceded its abolishment by many decades, and most vociferously by the first Statesman of the New South Africa, Nelson Mandela.
One could argue that while one waits for the justice based "impractical" solution to transpire, should one allow those suffering the injustices of oppression and inhuman subjugation, to continue doing so in the interim, or should one aim for any quick compromised "practical" solution that alleviates their misery? One of the finest red herrings thrown on the "fugitive .. trail" yet! When the question is posited in this way, it wonderfully co-opts the preeminence of morality over "impracticality" in intellectual thought by artificially constructing a false either or choice in the best mold of "either you are with us, or against us".
In reality, there are two rather straightforward truism responses to this that must coexist concurrently. The first is the moral response of the intellectual that is independent of the efficacy of its realization. This moral response is essential for identifying 'the right thing to do' space for the society as its moral compass.
The second is the "policy" response, so to speak. This is concerned with the efficacy of the measures required to bring injustices to a halt in any practical measure, while being cognizant of the path shown by the moral compass of the nation, and perhaps also being influenced by it rather than by some other distorted compass of the "high priests" of the ruling elite. Bringing "policies" to bear upon the problem space is a political advocacy process, a social activism process, a grass-roots mobilization process, a revolutionary process, and in a democratic country like the United States of America, it is entirely a lobbying process, a seeding of the "right" thoughts in "Foreign Affairs" process, getting hands and feet and souls dirty process, and even waging an all out war on WMD pretexts to eradicate oppression and injustices of ones' own vested interests process!
The twain, "moral compassing" and "policy making", are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the former must precede the latter in order to create the desired "policy advocacy" in society in the first place that can eventually seed the desired "policy making". Let me just refer to this bit of rational commonsense that derives from a moral sense of justice and fair play, as the principle of Moral-Activism.
And the same persons don't necessarily have to be doing both at the same time, i.e. "moral compassing" and "policy making". For instance, the abolitionists clamored largely theoretically in their intellectual writings and speeches for the abolition of slavery a good thirty years before an advocacy policy got crafted (due to whatever reasons of expediency and political forces), and the latter drew upon the former for the doctrinal motivations to create the momentum that launched the American Civil War against slavery. The example of South Africa cited earlier on the other hand is a more virtuous example of the principle of Moral-Activism. It is one where "moral compassing" and the ground-floor activism and protest manifested in many of the same peoples simultaneously. Among them, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and the incredibly famous and respected world Statesman, Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison for his unequivocal advocacy on the firm moral principles to end apartheid. During this tenure in the "Gulag", he did not compromise because his people were suffering. Indeed, he was offered many such compromises, and shown many "practical" alternatives for being let out of Jail and for the temporary band aid relief of his peoples if he'd only give up his unequivocal moral call to end apartheid. Had he been co-opted at the time by this red-herring of "practical", and had he not had firm moorings in the moral-compassing of his own conscience that was the impetus behind his Moral-Activism, there'd be no new South Africa today.
Knowing the 'right thing to do space' in order to pursue an advocacy that is principled, even when the struggle may be long and arduous, is a simple straightforward truism that somehow seems to get lost when it comes to Israel-Palestine. I am sorry if the principle of Moral-Activism escapes all the "dissenting priests" in the entire Western Hemisphere. The red herrings they strew about with what's "practical" without any moral foundations - perhaps unwittingly for having followed their own compromised "super dissenting priests" who never laid out the "moral compass" on this issue for their flock due to their own reprehensible self-interests - has been the death of an innocent peoples. Literally speaking. And I am sure they still sleep soundly at night!
So why am I not enthusiastically applauding Uri Avnery, the prominent and respected leader of Gush Shalom, Israel's peace activists, for exposing Israel's hypocrisy before the West? The answer depends on why is a similar argument for abolishing Israel as an apartheid state, as was made for South Africa, conclusively ending its Zionist reign of monumental terror and obscurantism (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and making that country one uniform nation with equal rights for all its inhabitants (and keeping any name, even Israel, or in fairness and acceptance of a genuinely contrite mea culpa, calling it Israel-Palestine or Palestine-Israel, or indeed Palestine), not being brought up by Uri Avnery? Where is the principled Moral-Activism in his advocacy?
The most à propos model for the reconstruction of this anachronistic apartheid-racist Zionist state in the holy lands is indeed South Africa. The incredible parallels have been discussed by many over the years as cited above in the long reading list for those unfamiliar with the subject matter, and need not be rehearsed again. Had these moral calls been vociferously made 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, after 911, and had the "dissenting priests" seeded the moral compass of the peoples by unequivocally demanding divestment, demanding sanctions, and demanding an end to the apartheid and racism ingrained in Zionism and hence in its Zionist state, this moral compassing would have surely seeded an activism that was principled, and we may have already seen the Palestinian tragedy very pragmatically reversed.
Were it not for the vested interests of the high priests and their various incantations that stayed mum, and are still mum on the subject. It is one thing to expect the "high priests" of the ruling elite to take these conscionable moralistic positions and be disappointed. It is quite another to have the "dissenting priests" also lead their flock to the same pastures, albeit through a more curious route! These vested-interests from influence peddlers have to be shoved aside to seed the roots of justice in any system of injustices, as the history of the world informs us to this day!
Here are some additional counter perspectives to the two-state solution from another Israeli Jew (turned Christian), Israel Shamir, who does not buy the "impracticality" red herring, nor Ben Gurion's disingenuous "It is true God promised it to us" nonsense, and argues a moral position unequivocally, at
I once met Israel Shamir, curious to learn if he was for real or just another red-herring for clever deflection of conscionable peoples' efforts. What little I discovered from his autobiographical and very personal public speech that I attended at a local university a few years ago where he noted "Jews need a homeland [in Palestine] as much as fish need bicycles", made me realize that not all Israelis are blind sighted - that moral traditions are still alive among them! Just that there are too few of these outspoken precious gems (here is another whose family even gave up their Israeli citizenship by choice as victims of their own conscience when they woke up from their Zionist slumber, once again demonstrating that actions speak louder than laments)! Each of them often tends to acquire the magic instantly affixing label of "self-hating Jew", and their political positions conveniently labeled anti-Semitic. See here and here on how this label is dexterously manufactured and deployed to discredit anyone who disagrees with either the official position of Zionism, or presents other milder variants of it, apportioning for themselves the vehemence of the Zionists in commensurate amounts!
Why does Uri Avnery indeed stop short of suggesting dismantling of the Israeli Zionist Apartheid state and making it one democratic equitable state for all its inhabitants? Indeed, by the admission of Israel's own founding patriots:
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” Moshe Dayan: Haaretz, April 4, 1969. (noted from the web, Dayan was probably quoting Ben Gurion from the 'The Jewish Paradox')
Where are his moral stances? Is he confused about the "right thing to do" as well? Doesn't seem likely, as unlike the American and other European audience, he sees the reality and history on the ground from ground zero itself. Perhaps he may be reminded that if he claims his Jewish religion as a race, he may well be the inheritor of King Solomon the wise! And if he claims it as his faith (and is not an atheist like the majority of the European culturally Jewish immigrant inhabitants of Israel, see confessional writings such as "My Holiday, Their Tragedy"), then he is indeed the inheritor of the moral Ten Commandments of his lofty faith. But if he is only informed by cultural affiliation to the Jewish traditions, he is still a human being first and still the inheritor of the genuine wisdom of all the sages of the ages! Why this blind-sight, especially being an activist for peace? Is it not also activist for justice? If he can forget about the crimes of his own founding fathers "I am prepared to leave the history, ideology and theology of the matter to the theologians, ideologues and historians.", and "If somebody is ready to make peace with me, within borders and on conditions agreed upon in negotiations, that is quite enough for me.", why stop short of full restitution and all live in peace within the same borders within which they all rightfully belong - Jews, Christians, and Muslims?
Indeed, if it were the victims who had made these conciliatory statements, these lofty proclamations would surely have elevated humanity to a new level of compassion and forgiveness in putting the past behind them - a mighty indomitable peoples indeed, as resolute in their suffering, as magnanimous in their victory. These statements coming from the victimizers however, while to many in the West may be commendable, to me, for a conscionable activist of peace whom I also admire for his immense courage to continually speak out against the crimes of his own peoples, are quite indefensible, and downright disingenuous! Perhaps I may have missed something here, but it strikes me as rather odd that the occupier is claiming he is prepared to live amicably with the victims under secure borders. It is almost as if a thief broke into my house, locked me up in the bathroom, then when I made too much racket, he said he was willing to live peacefully in some well defined rooms in the house! I am sorry if no one sees the irony of this!
Uri Avnery's confessional "I am an Israeli patriot," explains this enigma in as much clarity as the following gem from Baruch Kimmerling, another Israeli Patriot who calls Israel his land when he wasn't born there, and identifies himself in the oxymoronic category of "Jew, atheist, and Zionist" where the latter two may be consistent, but how does that pertain to being a Jew?
“As a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist, I have two memorial days in my country, Israel. One for the Holocaust and one for soldiers who fell in wars. I also have one day of celebration, the anniversary of the day Israel declared its statehood. [...] Independence Day is a holiday for me, but also an opportunity for intense self-introspection. A person needs a state and land, and this is my land, my homeland, despite the fact that I was not born here. I am proud of the unprecedented accomplishments of this country, and feel personally responsible for its failures, foolishness, injustice, evil, and its oppression of its citizens and residents (Jewish, Arab, and others) as well as of those who are defined and defined themselves as her enemies. I know that my holiday, a day of joy and pride for me, is a day of mourning and tragedy for some of Israel's citizens and, more so, for members of the Palestinian people everywhere. I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree. Happy holidays, Israel.” (My Holiday, Their Tragedy, 2002.)
Disingenuous self interest once again? Neither calling unequivocally for abolishing the apartheid state (as far as I am aware, and if they have already done so elsewhere, I eat crow with pleasure). And neither extending to the displaced Palestinians the privileges they apportion for themselves in Israel - making it their home when not being born there (although Uri Avnery may well have been I don't know, I have never met him) when they don't accord it to those who indeed were and were kicked out by the very founding of the state which Kimmerling is so proudly calling his independence day. He does indeed magnanimously calls for Jews acknowledging the suffering of the Palestinians so that he can live in peace in Israel, but not for remedying the injustice in the only just and moral way - but then, being an atheist, whence the source of morality? God is dead, Nietzsche is alive, and so are his mantle-bearing ubermensch! Witness it in his own essay the vacuous words without the concomitant unequivocal call to abolish apartheid and make it one homeland for those forcibly displaced by his independence day:
"The transformation of the Holocaust into a solely Jewish tragedy, as opposed to a universal event, only weakens its significance and its legitimacy, tarnishing us and the memory of the victims. Likewise, its unnecessary overuse by Jews in Israel and the rest of the world, particularly political bodies, has made the Holocaust banal. Above all, a provocative and dangerous approach has bought a place in our hearts: that Jews, as the victims of the Holocaust, are permitted to treat goyim however they want. Forceful and condescending, "anti-gentile-ism" is identical to criminal anti-Semitism. ... What can I do? A person is closer to his own friends, tribe, and people. Along with that, however, I cannot forget or refrain from mourning the victims of this bloody conflict and feel deep empathy with those who have suffered and still suffer as a result of the fatal encounter between Jews and Arabs in this land. I hope that the day will come when we will commemorate together and mourn together, Jews and Arabs alike, for all of the victims of the conflict. Only then will we be able to live together in this place in safety. ... I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree."
I am sorry that I am less than impressed, despite the self-flagellation. "What can I do?" Kimmerling asks? Here are three immediate things a conscionable Israeli can do if he is a Moral-Activist (see example here): 1) Start a campaign to demand genuine justice - not mere words of contrition - by requiring the apartheid nature of the state and the "Berlin Wall" to be simultaneously demolished. 2) Stop paying taxes that contributes to the maintenance of the apartheid state. 3) As a conscionable person, leave Israel until such time that others who have more right to be there, on account of having being born there, and were forcibly evicted, are also allowed to return! To me, it appears that without any of the concomitant actions for Moral-Activism, the only reason Kimmerling calls for the recognition of the plight of the Palestinians is so that he and Zionist Jews like him can live in peace.
Thus, what might any conscionable self-respecting Palestinian conclude from this? Apart from the cynicism that is now ingrained in the Middle East of this stereotype: they will first plan to kill you with a design most brutal, and then come to your funeral lamenting "We can forgive them for killing our children, we cannot forgive them for making us kill theirs" as was noted by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, in order to win back their rights as human beings first from their monstrous oppressors who only think of themselves first and not of the abject suffering that is being unfolded right down the Jews-only highway from them, and who continue to maintain that "A person is closer to his own friends, tribe, and people." rather than demonstrate any genuine sympathy towards the sufferings of others at their own hands, they (the Palestinians) have to make the cost of occupation so exorbitant, that the next clarion call from people like Kimmerling would indeed have to be a demand for full restitution of the Palestinians so that he could indeed live in peace!
Also, let's not be fooled either that simply declaring Israel as a non-apartheid state with a change in its laws as well as national flag will solve all the problems for the Palestinians, but it will be an amazing welcoming start from the present day inhuman oppression that the world silently spectates. The economic hegemony of the European transplants into Israel and its high tech economy all in the hands of the Jews, will likely stay the same - rights do not equate prosperity, but is indeed an axiomatic start. Witness South Africa - its economy and its lands are still largely in the hands of the tiny white minority, and the majority black indigenous population still lives in abject poverty. But one has to begin somewhere - the place to begin is the laws on the books, the constitution, and the philosophy of equal rights for all its citizens regardless of caste, creed, sex, religion, and ethnicity. How can any nation, founded on these lofty principles itself, befriend and support a nation that is its exact opposite? Only politics and self-interests of its ruling elite - as in the case of all cases of injustices in society since the very inception of society!
It is indeed interesting to identify all those "intellectuals", "moralists", "historians", "scholars", and high profile pundits and prolific exponents who argue either "impracticality" or "Palestinian intransigence" or offer vacuous sympathy, to either continue to propose the severely compromised for one side, the two-state theoretical solution along 1967 borders as their gesture of "fairness" and "compassion", or continue to argue for the occupation because of docile unacceptability of occupation to those being occupied.
Identify all of these exponents of Israel, not very hard to do at all in this information age, and examine their own vested interests and/or affiliations because of which they shirk from taking the only genuinely moral and just position of dismantling the apartheid state of Israel into an equal state for all its denizens born there. If they support open immigration based only on the Jewish "race" or "faith" cards, and deny right of return, fair compensation (ask the Holocaust survivors for a quote of what that might be and what Israel extracts each year from Germany), and rehabilitation in their own ancestral lands for the displaced and dispossessed indigenous Palestinians and their children and grandchildren, and present themselves as "objective" erudite observers of the matter, the question must be asked by conscionable peoples on the morality and vested self interests of this doublespeak that seems to be gathering roaring applause in the liberal Left! It continually escapes everyone's imagination to keep the diabolical game of Zionism in perspective - buy time to seed the land with birth rights, and continual small incremental encroachments, and systematic depopulation through intense oppression such that the victims would give up, die away, or become abject slaves!
And similarly identify all those who prominently accept the 1967 border solution - crafted any which horrendous way as inhabitable bantustans forming no semblance of an independent nation-state with all the same rights and privileges as any other independent nation-state, including having a well equipped modern army, navy, air force, marines for self-defense, and own commerce and independent ingress and egress trade and movement points in and out of their nation-state for an independent economy and freedom of travel, just to point out two major gaping holes in all two-state solution proposals that have been put on the table - from the beleaguered side and ask whether they do so because by choice, or because of having had no choice in the matter and only wanting to just get to any peaceable solution, justice or not, so that some beleaguered peoples may live in some kind of semblance of peace as human beings first, and not as trampled sub-species of some "cockroaches" under the watchful gun turrets of Israeli sharp shooters mounted atop the 14-ft high apartheid wall that runs through their bedrooms and backyards! This sub-species classification for the Palestinians was created by the Israelis themselves - shocking? Read for yourselves [1]:
“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” and “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the IDF: “New York Times 14 April 1983”. (noted from the web)
Unless the vested interests are clearly and unmistakably disambiguated, the red herrings will continue to be strewn along all paths - deliberately or unwittingly makes no difference to one on the "fugitive" trail - to constrict the solution space to the exclusive benefit of one party and to the severe handicap of the other, until either Ben Gurion's call is realized: "We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return ... The old will die and the young will forget.", or General Shlomo Lahat's: "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves". And that is indeed the reality of Israel-Palestine today as it has always been since its bloody and brutal inception 60 years ago, and intensely accelerated after the 1967 military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip.
Even the commonsensical proposition of why the Palestinians would ever accept an occupier was echoed by the very founding father of this Nakba for the victims (except at the barrel of a gun continuously held to their lives to slowly wear them down while continually playing the diabolical game of "yes but no" to mitigate international pressures as the systematic task of squeezing the victims goes on in the background seeding new realities daily that perforce must subsequently be articulated as axiomatic "The Palestinians' return could be implemented in ways that minimize, rather than exacerbate, the disruption for Israelis living in the areas."):
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" (Ben Gurion in "The Jewish Paradox")
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." (Ben Gurion, presumably quoted by Noam Chomsky in Fateful Triangle, noted from the web)
From the very conception of founding of Israel by Herzl in 1896 on the banks of the river Rhine “In Basle I founded the Jewish state ... Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.”, to this very day, the battle cry of anti-Semitism has been diabolically harvested (see here), and sometimes even criminally (see here and here), to justify Zionism and its offspring 'Der Judenstaat'. But in the reality of today, the Jewish state is an anachronism of history, a perception that legitimized it in the minds of the followers of this Zionist idea when indeed anti-Semitism was rampant in Christian Europe. Today, never mind European anti-Semitism, there are now laws appearing on the books in Europe that even criminalizes the mere questioning of the history as related by the Zionists to the world's public. Thus, the Zionist Jews are now pretty safe from any further persecution from Christian Europe, and there is little reason to maintain the Zionist character of the state in Palestine when it comes at the expense of intense suffering and injustice to another innocent peoples already living there. It would hardly matter to anyone if 'Der Judenstaat' was moved to Europe somewhere, compensation that it was for the pain and suffering imposed on the innocent Jews by the fanatic Christians of the previous century - unfortunately, the compensation was offered them at another's expense.
But today, it is high time to rectify and redress that blot on humanity by the very European and Western nations who now proclaim themselves as the emblem of civilization and morality and beacon of human progress and learning. Perhaps they can spotlight this beacon onto their own first sins and help redress the calamitous suffering that is transpiring right under their very noses on an entirely innocent peoples as a result of their own creation - both the first innocent victims, and then as a result of their shoddy compensation for their monumental crimes to those victims, the new innocent victims. Some luminous civilization out to teach the rest of the world how to live in civilized modernity as it continually constructs new victims!
And it is indeed instructional to learn of the sorrows and calamitous suffering from the perspective of the victims themselves, an oft neglected sin in the West which prides itself in its own articulate description of the World's victims and in unfurling the crimes of their own hegemonic emperors by writing prolific books and touting their much wonted freedom of speech - to absolutely zero degree of efficacy except more books sold and more prominence gained - rather than listen to the victims themselves with as much credibility lent to their own suffering voices.
Somehow, the victim screaming in pain is considered biased, but their victimizers' description of their plight is academic honesty and intellectual brilliance! I don't think I really need to hear it from Noam Chomsky to know how Palestinians are suffering, although his conscionable exposure of their plight in the West is certainly very important, and has been so for many years - but his half baked two-state proposals for their solution-space ain't.
When we give higher currency to conscionable dissent makers whose prime cultural affiliations are with the victim makers themselves, over those voices of anguish of the victims and those with cultural and civilizational affiliations to the victims as their extended family, we do both the victims and other well intentioned bystanders longing to figure out how to make peace with justice, a great disservice!
Here is another example of this twisted view of justice even by well intentioned exponents of the Palestinians' rights but civilizationally and culturally allied with the victimizers: "Palestinians Have A Right To Go Home" by the vocal and conscionable Phyllis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies. After passionately arguing the Right of Return for the Palestinians in the abstract:
"Palestinians today make up one of every four refugees in the world. Their right to return to their homes, despite more than a 52-year delay in realizing that right, is no less compelling than the right to return home of any other refugees from any other war. International law is very clear: It doesn't matter which side wins or which side loses, after a war, refugees have the right to go home. The United Nations passed Resolution 194 (which the U.S. and every other U.N. member state except Israel voted to reaffirm each year from 1949 till 1994) specifically to make sure that those made refugees by the creation of Israel would be protected. And yet Israel specifically rejects that right of return because of concern that allowing the Palestinian refugees to come home would change the demographic balance of the Jewish state."
But now look at the disingenuousness of the solution space. An absence to any call to eliminate the main reason why the Right of Return is not being implemented by Israel - it's apartheid nature of the Jewish state which has been diabolically constructed on another peoples' land where the indigenous population was predominantly non-Jewish! The "just" solution escapes Phyllis Bennis even when she acknowledges the cause of the problem in this case.
And she also surveys the various implementation attempts by others:
"Is compromise possible? Absolutely. But only if it is based on recognition of the right of return as a real, fundamental right - not if it is based on Israel's superior power. Israel's proposal during the recent Camp David summit for a "humanitarian" family reunification program that would benefit only a few tens of thousands, out of the millions of stateless Palestinians, is one compromise that will surely not work. Another sure-to-fail compromise is the proposal being quietly bandied about in Washington and a variety of Middle Eastern capitals. This plan envisions a quid pro quo in which Baghdad would resettle many of the Palestinians (with or without their consent) from refugee camps in Lebanon to Kurdish areas of Iraq (from which equally unconsenting Kurds are already being expelled), in exchange for lifting the crippling economic sanctions against Iraq. Publicly denied by the relevant governments, the plan has in fact been discussed with Iraqi officials by the representative of at least one member of the U.S. Congress, and a number of Arab leaders are known to privately support the idea. This is a non-starter too."
But then makes this statement as her own suggestion:
"Real compromise is possible in determining how, not whether, the right of return will be realized. The Palestinians' return could be implemented in ways that minimize, rather than exacerbate, the disruption for Israelis living in the areas."
Why this axiomatic preference to minimize "the disruption for Israelis living in the areas" - they are the victimizers to start with, aren't they? [2]
Instead, why does the author not make the only conscionable call of Moral-Activism to abolish the apartheid state as the only just first step in the right direction?
The same is true of Noam Chomsky - while he supported the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, he is against sanctions for Israel. Why should the vested interests of those civilizationally, culturally, and religio-historically allied with the victimizers, despite being courageously vocal in bringing the plight of the innocent victims to the attention of their own nations, be allowed to dictate, and dominate the articulation of the solution space on behalf of the victims? I am sorry if no one sees the irony in this!
Indeed, Chomsky has himself informed many victims themselves, as well as the Western audience, of the pragmatic underpinnings of the terror that was ruthlessly employed in creating the Jewish State. In his "Western State Terrorism", in Chapter 2, Chomsky writes:
' In 1943, current Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir wrote an article entitled “Terror” for the journal of the terrorist organization he headed (Lehi) in which he proposed to “dismiss all the 'phobia' and babble against terror with simple, obvious arguments.” “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war,” he wrote, and “We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle.” “First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today, and its task is a major one: it demonstrates in the clearest language, heard throughout the world, including by our unfortunate brethren outside the gates of this country, our war against the occupier.” '
Where the "occupier" was either the British, or the indigenous Palestinian population, or both, I am not sure. Neither were however spared the wrath of Jewish terror in the creation of the Jewish State, and the Palestinians bearing the biggest brunt of it. So Chomsky is not a stranger to the monumental crimes of Zionist Jews visiting the Nakba upon the innocent local peoples of Palestine, that Kimmerling proudly calls his "independence day". Neither is Chomsky any stranger to how anti-Semitism was deftly harvested to populate the new Jewish State, with the escaping Jews from Europe being cleverly diverted to the intended Jewish State in Palestine all throughout the 1940s even before the state was founded. As he has himself noted it somewhere in his prolific writings, the affluent ones and the techno-scientists and the Jewish social elite escaping from the Nazis were allowed onto the shores of the United States, the rest were deliberately diverted to Palestine.
And Chomsky's "pragmatic" response to this genocide and mayhem of the local population during the founding of the Jewish State? All modern nations are formed on the unfortunate bloodshed of millions, the United States itself was formed on the blood of 10 million natives, and so on. This is all faits accomplis. So we have to move on and live among our internationally recognized secure borders according to international norms. (Précis of private communication from a while back)
Great. And here is where the red herring begins. Higher the priesthood, more tortuous the red herrings.
Chomsky does not distinguish between a crime that happened in the distant past that we can do little about today in rectification, and one that is occurring concurrently in our present epoch for which we can most assuredly do something in rectification, and for which a just and moral solution does indeed exist. It has not receded into dusty pages of history far enough yet to have become a fait accompli that cannot be practicably undone - such as returning California to Mexico.
Today, Israel is the only nation on earth as far as I know, with no self-recognized borders except the entire 'land of Canaan', and where the writ of this apartheid state is continually extending over amorphous boundaries with new 14 ft walls being continually constructed to create giant prisons to enclose the indigenous population who refuse to "die", and whose "young" refuse to "forget", and who refuse to be "resigned to live here as slaves", and who miraculously escape "We have to kill all the Palestinians" call to ethnically cleanse the beleaguered Palestinians from their own homeland. Is there any other evidence of monumental terrorism even possible in the present epoch? While all eyes have been diverted to the "Islamic terrorists" and the "Bin Ladens" and "Orange alert" and strip search at airports, the big monstrous Jewish elephant in the Zionist state is blithely ignored - even as I write this today in February 2007 - permitting them the ubermensch prerogative for Eretz Yisrael, which according to Zionism's overtly stated ideological underpinnings that entirely drives the political aspirations and its execution in the apartheid state, is "from the Nile to the Euphrates". Or it may be the other way around. It doesn't matter since it's a scalar and an all encompassing open secret that no one wishes to say out loud for some reason in the West, but surely, like Uri Avnery mentions the "Arab refusal" premising all facades of peace talks, and when that failing, the "yes but no" taking over, it is also much openly discussed in the Hebrew society as the premise upon which Israeli policies, its laws, and its visitation of brutal oppression upon the indigenous peoples, are made. But the Western intellectual exercising claims to "dissent chief priesthood" dare not base any advocacy based upon these facts of the oppressive regime. That this irony fails to strike the commonsense of many, is not surprising. For priesthood in any domain, is merely the shepherd tending to his respective sheep.
So why am I not enthusiastically applauding Noam Chomsky for his courageous "dissent"? The answer entirely depends on why is a similar argument for abolishing Israel as an apartheid state, as was made for South Africa, and conclusively ending its Zionist reign of monumental terror and obscurantism in the modernity of the 21st century, not being courageously made by him. Where is the principled Moral-Activism in his advocacy of a negotiated two-state solution? It isn't that the distinguished professor isn't familiar with the diabolical plans of the Zionist state - he is no ordinary intellectual - in the face of Israel's "existent reality" of take 10 give back 1, "yes but no", and the "Arab refusal" that has been their not so "secret weapon", nor is he unfamiliar with the Machiavellian motto of the Zionist state "wage war by way of deception" as its guiding principle, and nor is he unaware of the underlying implementation philosophy that has underscored the Zionist state's pragmatism of incremental faits accomplis by initiating new crises starting from its very birth pangs as was openly admitted by Ben Gurion himself: "what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times"!
What indeed are the underlying reasons for his abstaining from making the moral calls for a unified democratic Israel-Palestine for all the inhabitants of Palestine? What restrains him from articulating an unequivocal principled stance against the very root cause celebra of apartheid and the "ubermensch" racism ingrained in Zionism itself that makes Israel such a misconstruction of West's own cherished values of democracy and equal rights for all? Just to refresh ones' failing memory, for the 'Democratic' racism see here, the UN Anti-Zionist Resolution 3379 see here here, and its timed revocation in 1991 to officially assert 'Zionism is no longer racism' with the emerging new world order see here and here as the "high priests" tell it, and here as the "dissenting priest" tells it, and see here for how 3379 was originally spinned by the "highest priest" in the land in the influential Foreign Affairs magazine.
I do not hesitate to ask the following of such a distinguished intellectual, for I gave up following "priests" when I woke up to the presence of unexamined axioms in all "priestdom", and instead decided to think for myself thus absolving all "priests" of being responsible for either saving me from perdition or consigning me to it! But that does not absolve the "priests" of their own greater responsibilities of priesthood towards the rest of their flock who glibly accept anything from "high pulpits". Higher the "pulpit", higher their credibility, and greater the consequent responsibility. Has Noam Chomsky relinquished his claims to moral imperatives and moral high grounds of honest intellectualism that he previously asserted was the responsibility of intellectuals (see here, here, and here):
"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies" and "the responsibility of a writer as a moral agent is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them."?
It is inconceivable that Chomsky would not recognize that by not providing this unequivocal moral compassing for his nation in blanket uncompromising terms when it comes to Israel-Palestine, he unwittingly lends his own intellectual support to the hegemonistic aspirations of world's sole superpower nation which he fearlessly and uncompromisingly calls the "rogue state" (see here, here, here, here) every chance he gets. By inexplicably ignoring this "rogue state" conveniently using (and abusing) a minority among the Jews themselves to further its own hegemonistic interest of sustained indomitable preeminence in the affairs of the world (see here) by financially and politically maintaining Israel in its current abominable Zionist construction as its private little Nuclear armed proxy hegemon in the Middle East (see here, here, here, and here), and staying silent about the role that Zionists themselves are currently playing in the construction of his own nation's imperial foreign policies in a tortuous collaboration of self-interests (see here and here and compare authors here) which seems to be visible to all and sundry in the world, except inexplicably to the "arguably the most important intellectual alive", Chomsky is willingly co-opting himself to the interests of the "ruling elite" that he has spent his entire life sanity-checking. Indeed, Moral-Activism from intellectual supremos, demands uncompromising moral compassing, as he had himself noted during his earlier years of an idealist's dissent:
"Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us...." (Responsibility of Intellectuals)
In these "revolutionary times", I am unfortunately less than impressed by Chomsky's supposed raison d'être of Palestinians suffering under the 'jackboots' of the Israelis being the basis of his "practical" two-states "policy advocacy" and the legitimization of the forced separation of an indigenous peoples from their own lands. The beleaguered Palestinians have already been suffering for more than 40 years under the same 'jackboots' and continually losing their lives and property to diabolically constructed faits accomplis that Chomsky knows all too well about. This rationale of 'any tactic for alleviating the misery of a defenseless peoples' for pushing various and sundry advocacy plans by the well intentioned, in the absence of Moral-Activism that is firmly seeded by a moral compass, ends up being another gigantic stinking red-herring in the long term, bigger and more deflecting, than all the obvious ones pointed out by Uri Avnery.
It is indeed but a truism that in every society there are always only a tiny handful who are the illustrious vanguards of morality and social justice. These handful tend to attract to themselves a majority of the well intentioned and conscionable peoples from the larger society to learn what is the 'right thing to do' space for their activism to redress social and political injustices. They supposedly rip apart the red herrings cleverly disseminated by the "high priests" of the ruling elite, dexterously guiding their flock to see the burdensome truth behind the lies and distortions inherent in incantations of power, and thus apportion for themselves credit for guiding their flock that is commensurate with their ranking in priesthood, as commonsense might dictate. And this credit for Western intellectuals on many issues of contemporary geopolitical concern is surely overwhelmingly positive, which is why the New York Times cited Noam Chomsky as "arguably the most important intellectual alive". All likely à propos for sanity-checking his own nation's hegemonistic foreign policies, including eloquently highlighting the fait accompli of long past crimes (history) of Jewish terrorism while founding the state of Israel upon the blood of the Palestinians. Except when it comes to resolving a just solution space (contemporaneously) for his already recognized Zionism's usurpation and coercive resettling of Palestine, then this epithet suddenly and inexplicably fails to deliver, in my humble (mis)perception.
It's almost as if unless the issue is already fait accompli, Chomsky won't touch it when it's so close to his heart. But once fait accompli, many books about it will be written delineating the monstrosity of the crimes and the mendacity of power that enabled the construction of such crimes, attracting a great following and great prestige for speaking up on the crimes of his emperors. If I was an emperor, I wouldn't mind having Chomsky on my tail either because he will only be chasing faits accomplis leaving me free to create new ones! And thus the New York Times epithet fails miserably on the contemporaneousness of this matter, and only on account of Chomsky's uncourageous silence in unequivocally articulating a moral compass on this issue when something can actually be done about it rather than courageously lament in history books after the fact. His undistinguished silence has likely misled, or indeed not been the prime mover of, many a movements that might have effectively called for an end to the Israeli racism and apartheid, and thus postponed the harbinger of justice to a suffering peoples. As the reality of faits accomplis on the ground might suggest, justice delayed, is justice denied, thus necessitating increasingly greater and more tumultuous radical transformation in bringing it about. Can the increased bloodshed be laid at the footsteps of the silently spectating world, and in commensurate measure, upon the silence of their ranking priest who claims "the responsibility of a writer as a moral agent is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them"?
So we have the "high priests" of officialdom spinning their doctrines in manifest truism to serving the interests of their ruling elite, and we have the "dissenting priests" ostensibly sanity-checking and unraveling their spin. But who sanity checks and unravels the self-interests of the "dissenting priests" and the concomitant red herrings?
Their inexplicable failure in providing a moral compass on this single most momentous issue of our time, only succeeds in carving out the entire solution space on Israel-Palestine in the West, between the "high priests" of the ruling elite and the "dissenting priests" of the conscionable flock, to the rather limited two-state axiomatic paradigm forcing the beleaguered peoples to choose between the reality of a brutal occupation, and the reality of continually shrinking buntustans that has no parallel to statehood anywhere else on Earth today.
So let's tepidly examine Noam Chomsky's own objectivity in the light of his own self proclaimed self-interests that might coherently explain this odd blind-sight in the most profound intellectual in the West. Having openly declared himself a Zionist, and a Zionist youth leader, albeit of the 1940s variety, whatever that might mean, I must ask why the profound intellectual of the dissent space would not conscionably recuse himself from bringing to bear his own Zionist-aspiration driven personal advocacy on the Israel-Palestine solution space due to his obvious conflict of interest, and focused instead, as a conscionable intellectual must, on what the suffering Palestinian victims themselves advocate as their desired solution space? Just as he conscionably brings their miserable plight to the attention of his Western audience by courageously setting aside his personal Jewish affiliations when highlighting the monumental crimes of the cruel Zionists upon the Palestinians, why would he not also conscionably set aside his personal self-interests of his nuanced "Labor-Zionism" aspirations, and bring the Palestinian victims' own solutions - as the victims' natural right to demand their own redressing - to the attention of the same audience?
This is a rather clear and unambiguous litmus test of objectivity for anyone who claims to speaks out on behalf of any suffering peoples. And it also provides a rational mechanism to anyone to enable them to set aside their own self-interests. Just allow the victims to speak for themselves and propagate their own claims before the world! In the pungent stink of the gigantic red herring of what's "practical", as in the "two-state solution", we see the "practical" slowly becoming faits accomplis, as the good peoples in the West are continually deflected from demanding the moral compass towards the 'right thing to do' space by their prominent intellectuals co-opted by their own self-interests.
And this red herring of disingenuousness doesn't just end here. There is even a finer shade that must still be unraveled. For an intellectual laying claims to high morality of intellectualism, and oft publicly teaching the Biblical Golden Rule "Do unto others as you have others do unto you", indeed, even creating logical corollaries to it which go something like this: "if it is good for me to do to you, it should be good for you to do to me, and if it is bad for you to do to me, it should be bad for me to do to you too", and continually teaching the public how to disambiguate on complex emotional matters that are typically steeped in hypocrisy due to self-interests, by looking at the issues from the point of view of a detached being sitting on Mars looking down upon the earthlings and employing the (Biblical) Golden Rule of Morality, what does it mean to be a Zionist? Chomsky has already recognized that nation states are formed on the bloodshed of the innocent native peoples as the natural consequence of the latter resisting the usurpation and resettling of their land by invaders, which even Ben Gurion recognized, as noted above, as why would the Palestinians ever accept the Zionist invaders peaceably thus necessitating (in Gurion's own words) "We must expel Arabs and take their places" and "We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return"!
Thus knowing full well that any Zionist aspiration for a land that is already continuously inhabited by an indigenous population for centuries will most assuredly continually lead to, and has already led to, their displacement and bloodshed, upon what "ubermensch" principle of morality is Chomsky's aspiration of Zionism based?
Is it what Golda Meir uttered:
"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." (Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971, noted from the web here).
Or is it what Menachem Begin uttered the day after the U.N. vote to Partition Palestine:
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." (Menachem Begin, noted from the web here)
Or is it based on the spirit, which for the nth time was candidly asserted by Yitzhak Shamir in his own straightforward diction, and Ariel Sharon in his characteristic bulldozing speak (and which is un-apologetically repeated ad nauseam by all Israeli statesmen and Zionist protagonists in their own choicest diction with the spectating world pretending to not notice):
"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple." (Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997, noted from the web here)
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial." (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online, noted from the web here)
While one is surely entitled to fantasize whatever one's mind may conjure up, but when it becomes the unstated underpinning of one's advocacy of a solution space that drowns out the echoes and aspirations of the victims themselves, there are a lot of red herrings on the ground. In any case, this is how I (mis)perceive Chomsky's advocacy of the "practical". The best way to demonstrate that these are indeed misperceptions and there are no vested self-interests at play, is to loudly condemn Zionism in all its abhorrent nuanced shades [3], to unequivocally call for an end to apartheid and "ubermensch" racism in Israel [4] that is entirely seeded from the "ubermensch" racism in Zionism itself, to designate Israel as a rogue state in one's writings and to call for its boycott and for sanctions to be imposed on it, and to actively engage in echoing the victims' own demands for justice and not put forth ones' own (tainted) solutions [5]. The little guy on Mars is still awaiting an unequivocal moral compassing from "priestdom" on Israel-Palestine!
Indeed, I would be much more impressed if distinguished and prominent intellectual dissenters and Jewish moralists like Noam Chomsky outright condemned modern Zionism and its racist apartheid structure on the principled position of Moral-Activism, as much as they condemned Nazism and its National Socialist State that was also based on the same Nietzscheian "ubermensch" philosophy and which once engulfed the entire world in a world war to eradicate. Perhaps in the present "World War IV" against "Islamic terrorism" - with the amazing new doctrinal name of "Islamofascism" synthesized to seed all the "doctrinal motivations" needed to sustain this new "policy" of "perpetual war" mobilization - he can, faithful to his own intellectual positions taken earlier on the responsibility of intellectuals, himself being one, and not just a mere ordinary one, but "arguably the most important intellectual alive" in the entire Western Hemisphere, advocate its moral extension, or its real moral commencement, against the "Jewish Fundamentalism" and "Jewish Terrorism" and "Zionofascism" of his own peoples in Israel-Palestine whose crimes he has amply documented himself (see here, here, here, and here for a recap of what's already been shown conclusively above).
As a polite courtesy to the prominent intellectuals and peace activists whose positions are illustratively dissected here to demonstrate the endless trail of red herrings inherent in the very premise of any allowable discourse on this subject in the West, even in the so called dissent space, I sent them an earlier version of this article for comment. Only Noam Chomsky responded. We went back and forth a few times. I remained unconvinced of his continued tortuous "practicality" arguments and suggested to him that he might voice them publicly in response to my article vastly opening up the discourse space. But he did put me in a temporary quandary by suggesting that I would be doing a grave disservice to the cause of the Palestinian peoples by making my views known in public as it will unwittingly give the Israelis and their Zionist exponents further excuse to increase their oppression as a pretext that 'see - they want to dismantle us'. He also disconcerted me by saying why was I bringing the illustrious name of Edward Said into this (by the fact of having quoted Edward Said). That threw me off balance for several sleepless nights and days delaying the publication of this article in much angst fighting with my own conscience. Until I realized (yet once again) that if I was right there under the 'jackboots' of the butchers, any butchers, in any place, even as a Jew under the Nazis, I would want some conscionable person on the outside to yell out my message loud and clear to the world for me: 'I am a human being under the jackboots of the Nazis - do the right thing for at least my children'. By not honoring that call of anguish of the innocent victims when I perceive the reality of their immeasurable suffering which is a "mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed", I would not like to become the recipient of their curse:
“and I still curse the killers, their accomplices, the indifferent spectators who knew and kept silent” (Elie Wiesel in All Rivers Run to the Sea)
That clinched it for me. The tyrants will do what the tyrants will do in any case, and as they have been doing for decades. And the people of conscience must do what the people of conscience must do, regardless, to end despots reigns.
Moving right along disambiguating and dismantling the constricted solution space of swiss cheese bantustans being offered the Palestinians as new faits accomplis are carried out right before our eyes as we stay wrapped up in the Ezra Pound's paradigm of deception with multiple red herrings (invent two lies and have the public energetically embroiled in which one of them might be true), the question arises that why should the dialog, when it comes to the Palestinians, begin with the 1948 construction of Israel through superpower politics? As for instance, in Phyllis Bennis' article where she passionately advocates justice for the refugees, she makes the following statement:
"The United Nations welcomed Israel as its newest member with Resolution 273, passed on May 11, 1949. The membership resolution stated specifically that entry to the world body was based on Israel's statements regarding its ability and willingness to implement the earlier Resolution 194 of December 1948, and the rights it granted to the Palestinians. Those were the right to return home and compensation for their losses during the war."
Sounds great, except that when it is applied to the more fundamental first cause question of why 'Der Judenstaat' was created in Palestine in the first place on another indigenous peoples' continuously inhabited land, three thousand year old history is drawn upon to show the aspirations of the victimizers and what transpired in Europe through the Holocaust as the final justification for its creation through the victimizers' own official instrument of adjudication. Why should that become so automatically axiomatic in one case, but the history and real lives of the peoples continuously living there before 1948 who are innocently victimized not be equally axiomatic? Does this have anything at all to do with attempting to bring justice in the best way possible to the tragedy unfolding on the ground, or the mere preservation of self-interests by arguing "impracticality"?
All conscionable peoples' voices of protest must be brought to bear on the plight of any innocent victims, for we are indeed one family in humanity, and when we collectively stand up against tyranny, we are at our finest in demonstrating that we have come a long ways from our humble Neanderthal beginning. However, in principled Moral-Activism, our conscionable voices can never be allowed to drown out the victims' own anguished voices themselves, the victims' own notion of what crimes are being heaped upon them, and the victims' own demands for what is fair and just restitution! Especially since the victims are still contemporaneous, and justice can still be afforded them. The crimes invoked upon them have not become fodder for erudite works of historical research as yet, as some like to pretend. The victims are still howling and writhing in insufferable pain!
The voices of the victims themselves describing their own fate are as potent, and as legitimate, as the Jewish moralist and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel's description of what the Jewish victims faced at the hands of another monumentally criminal oppressors. Just as the victims' own description of their Holocaust outweighs any detractors' and revisionist historians' claims to the contrary - indeed even laws are being constructed in many Western nations to make it illegal to challenge the victims' stories and the victims' suffering and the victims' version of what calamity befell them - so must the systematic genocide and depopulation, terrorizing, and inhuman subjugation of an innocent peoples in their own words must now replace the many Diaries of Anne Frank. The past monumental crime is over but its memory is now being devilishly employed to diabolically mask a new monumental crime in progress by the former victims themselves - see here, here, and here for how that's done, and here, here, and here to catch a glimpse of it in action to quell any criticism of Israel by constantly drawing upon allusions to the Holocaust "a hate-fest against Jews akin to a Hitler rally in Nazi Germany" and "Islamic Mein Kampf" - one might have thought that they may have known better, having suffered themselves and being god's chosen people and all!
Denying any genuine victims' indescribable calamity is monumentally shameful. The clarion call of "never again" however is not reserved to only one class of victims as some have tried to do. And when those who were once victims themselves create new victims of their own, and in a manner of oppression and deception learnt from their past victimizers, I tend to lose much sympathy for them. It is a factual statement that one can even observe in themselves, and in any court room for similar behavior exhibited by a past victim becoming the victimizer of a new innocent victims. Indeed, in a rational and fair court, they would be imperatively disarmed and locked up - for leaving weapons and power in the hands of the criminally insane would be an even greater monumental crime of any court!
Watching the Zionist operate, any Jewish person of conscience must surely be upset at what "great name" (sic!) some of their brethren have bestowed on the entire peoples of a high and moral tradition by the mere association with the word Jew. But that does not appear to be the case at all with rare exceptions (see here and here for some examples of such rare and genuine human beings who are so offended that they put their own lives on the line but remain largely unknown and unmourned in the victimizers' own civilizations but are idolized and immortalized as heroes by the victims themselves, and here for fair justice). Israel seems to continue to enjoy widespread support from the World Jewry, and most vocally from within the United States of America. Indeed a lot of support for Zionist Israel comes from this superpower nation's ordinary Christian Zionist ideological supporters (see here and here), of which the mighty President of this "Roman Nation" is himself an exponent.
And here comes the fundamental dichotomy in dialogs with the victims. To the victims, the Zionists are monumental barbarians to be seen in the same dock someday as Eichmann in Jerusalem, with the front rows occupied by the new innocent victims who have as much right to succor and restitution as their victimizers were for their own Holocaust! And surely the new victims, repeatedly, daily, hourly, every moment of their breadth, invoke the same curse uttered by the former victims "and I still curse the killers, their accomplices, the indifferent spectators who knew and kept silent". To them too, their plight must surely be an equal "mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed". And despite this daily inhuman subjugation, they continue to make every attempt at civilized existence despite burying their children daily, barely escaping from under the roofs of demolished homes and the wrath of D9 bulldozers and F16s, and having to kiss their beloved child with his or her eyes precisely blown out by an Israeli 25 year old sharp shooter as if he was "cockroach picking" and not go insane! In much vain and hollow rings the call of the Jewish moralists themselves:
"Although the Holocaust inflicted horrible injustice upon us, it did not grant us certificate of everlasting righteousness. The murderers where amoral; the victims were not made moral. To be moral you must behave ethically. The test of that is daily and constant."
One can read, hear, and see the Palestinian victims' scream in anguish and call for justice from the spectating world in their own voices here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, ... just as few randomly chosen samples of how the Palestinians themselves view their own calamity and how the victims themselves perceive justice, but for the convenient ear plugs in well intentioned peoples' ears. Compare the victims' own call for restitution to this articulation by Israeli Statesman Shimon Peres (the master of the art of "yes but no") here, and examine the vested interests of all those who echo it in all its nuanced shades!
And one can further watch how these screams are continually dismissed in the West, especially in the United States of America, by well organized shills for the Apartheid State continuing to strew their own B grade quality of red herrings, considerably less abstruse in disguising their obviousness in their on going attempt to continually sew obfuscation any which way possible in order to continue to buy time for 'Der Judenstaat' in seeding new "impracticalities" to justice for their innocent victims. The following is only a random sample. The very first comment for this book on "Refugees in Our Own Land : Chronicles from a Palestinian Refugee Camp in Bethlehem" by a commentator whose well known affiliations are noted here, and other generous red herring droppings noted here, says the following:
" ... Had those things actually been perpetrated by Israel, I would be first in line to condemn them. But even the United Nations has concluded that Israel has not committed genocide, in Jenin, or anywhere else. As for murder, it seems that the only murder is taking place by Palestinians against Israeli civilians, and that whosoever amongst Palestinians has been killed has died either in battle, in the line of fire, or by accident, for which Israel has apologized. When, on the other hand, was the last time a Palestinian leader actually sought an end to suicide bombings, because they are evil, not because they are inexpedient. "
And concludes by saying:
"My biggest problem with this book is that for most of the events that Hamzeh reports, she relies on hearsay. There has been no scientific or objective attempt to verify the information, much less the veracity of the sources. Even that might be all right, had the reporter not assumed an hysterical tone. But Hamzeh is so willing to believe everything nasty she hears about Israel or Israelis, or Jews for that matter, that nothing escapes unscathed. I want peace, but books like this one--filled with blame and outright hatred--do nothing to promote it."
Perhaps this commentator needs to be introduced to the "scientific or objective attempt to verify the information" standards adopted by the incumbent victimizers themselves to bring to the attention of the world what monumental crimes were once heaped upon them, or mandatorily be made to read the anguished words of Elie Wiesel in his own highly acclaimed "hysterical tone" of the calamity that is now a "mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed" for their own innocent victims. A conscionable reader may perhaps inform the commentator, as well as all those allied with her (begin here and here, then progress to here, here, here, here, here) of this fact so that we may all endeavor together - for none of us is perfect and many of us are easily misled, sometimes by blind passion, sometimes by disinformation - to become human beings first!
It may be à propos to bring the late Edward W. Said's own rational words - one who was indeed from among the victims and deeply affiliated with their culture and civilization as both a spokesperson and an anguished exponent of his peoples cause - for summation away from my more emotional ones that synchronizes to the beat of Elie Wiesel perfectly but perhaps not as eloquently or credibly. Excerpted from Edward Said's essay "The Mirage of Peace", October 16, 1995 in The Nation:
"The deep tragedy of Palestine is that a whole people, their history and aspirations have been under comprehensive assault--not only by Israel (with the United States) but also by the Arab governments and, since Oslo, by Arafat....
I do not pretend to have any quick solutions for the situation now referred to as "the peace process," but I do know that for the vast majority of Palestinian refugees, day laborers, peasants and town and camp dwellers, those who cannot make a quick deal and those whose voices are never heard, for them the process has made matters far worse. Above all, they may have lost hope....
I have been particularly disheartened by the role played in all this by liberal Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Silence is not a response, and neither is some fairly tepid endorsement of a Palestinian state, with Israeli settlements and the army more or less still there, still in charge. The peace process must be demystified and spoken about plainly. Palestine/Israel is no ordinary bit of geography; it is more saturated in religious, historical and cultural significance than any place on earth. It is also now the place where two peoples, whether they like it or not, live together tied by history, war, daily contact and suffering. To speak only in geopolitical clichés (as the Clinton Administration does) or to speak about "separating" them (as Rabin does) is to call forth more violence and degradation. These two communities must be seen as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from such a beginning can justice then proceed."
And perhaps I may be allowed to offer my own much more modest rational conclusions, as seen from the eyes of an ordinary person, with my own personal biases and self-interests. Not being an intellectual, I am mercifully spared their burden of claims to deep thoughts, and can speak straightforwardly in ordinary human being first sense, the common man's sense, or commonsense. It is but a concatenation of obvious moral truisms for there isn't a whole lot to this summation beyond that.
All of the discussion in this article is the view from the victims, and/or from the civilizations sympathetic to the victims, and/or from the courageous conscionable peoples in all civilizations who are human beings first and can genuinely commiserate with the misery of other suffering human beings without putting their own self-interests above those of imperatives of morality, and what is fair and what is just, as amazingly and quintessentially delineated in the Biblical Golden Rule "do unto others as you have others do unto you". The victimizers' and their exponents' view obviously is incongruent with this - another wholly truism! But can there be no objectivity? How does a judge ever make a ruling in any case? Is it only with victors' justice? No, not among civilized conscionable peoples, and among rational and moral civilizations. In these times of ease of access to information, amazing search engines and document archives at finger tips, it may indeed be deemed a moral crime, by the victims at the very least, to feign ignorance of the state of the world, or to disingenuously claim a different world view. But then it does require considerable skills to disambiguate the spin doctoring and vested interests that surround the information, especially for well intentioned spectating peoples removed from the conflicts themselves. How is one to discern fact from fiction? Unless one is the victim of course - then one needs no discernment! The victims know with certainty what crimes are visited upon them and what is their demand for restitution and compensation. Perhaps others might just ask the victims themselves? But that might just be too much commonsense, the good lord of hypocrisy, the ubermensch, forbid!
Do we need to define some standard agreed upon usage of words, i.e. definitions, that are then applied to all sides of the arguments, ab initio, in order to discern them unhypocritically? How important is it to know the "first cause", and how appropriate is the principle of "all the evil that follow" to apportion the blame for all crimes stemming from the first cause? How far in history may one go? One year? Ten Years? Fifty Years? 100 Years? Three Thousand Years? Ten Thousand Years? To Adam? To Devil? To God? (To Big Bang in case one is atheistic)? What key principle standard was employed at the conclusion of World War II at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials to apportion blame for the heinous war crimes committed by both sides of bombing civilian centers and causing the deaths of up to 50 million peoples - irrespective of whatever may have been the weaknesses in the execution of these standards due to self-interests of the victors as some have argued? (And we don't want to use these possible weaknesses in the execution of these standards as arguments to deflect our attention from the actual moral principles behind them which is the point of discussion - but do watch for it as some will surely try to distract attention from the actual moral principles themselves by bringing up various compromises and poor implementation of moral principles in the past as evidence for not following moral principles or not advocating justice based on moral principles - wonderfully smelly things, these red herrings, for some fishermen I am sure!)
Does the passage of time in the current epoch, as it blends into history, favor the status quo? Are we doomed to remain caught in this plight of the House of Zeus? Or is there a way to discern rationally, logically, fairly, to understand the "right thing to do" space? Once knowing that, it is always "impractical" to bring it about as the odds are always against the underdogs - the victims, and in favor of the topdogs - a truism. Arguing truisms like the 'impracticality" argument to justify not articulating 'the right thing to do' is called what?
(In case one does not know how to answer this question, one may try any of these for size and see which ones may fit: "hectoring hegemons", "self-interest", "sophistry", "hypocrisy", "double standards", "superpower's uncle tom", "a red herring manufacturing factory that supplies whole sale to the consciousness of their nation using the credibility of the power of their name", "intellectually aiding and abetting in the conspiracy to perpetuate a monumental crime through advocacy speech and actions not rooted in Moral-Activism and thus deliberately enabling the continued perpetuation of the crime and its concomitant new faits accomplis", et. al)
And the most obvious moral truism summation for last - the now visible elephant dancing on the newlywed's bed.
The most commonsensical solution that seems to be continually eluding the luminous West that supports the misconstruction of Israel as an apartheid state with various and sundry Western intellectuals sheepishly apologizing for it by cleverly not talking about it in all their fancy and refined punditry of high morality and responsibilities of intellectuals, is the one nation state for all its inhabitants. In that tight geography, two nations just cannot be constructed justly, the one with the guns will always dictate the terms. And it is truly no ordinary piece of geography. It is so steeped in the history and intermingling cultures of all three Abrahamic religions that try as the European Zionists may, to obliterate the vestiges of the other two, the history and its affiliations cannot be divorced from that geography. Abolishing apartheid and eliminating the racist Zionist philosophy and replacing it with a civil society and civil laws for all, is the only just solution. It is also the solution that the Palestinian peoples themselves demand.
One nation of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, or stating it in another rational order, of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, living amicably together in the holy lands that all covet, equitably sharing the Land of Canaan. With the passage of time, in a peace seeded with justice, all wounds of the victims - the ones throwing the rocks and the stones at the tanks besieging their homes, and the ones going berserk in blowing themselves up in a last ditched attempt to get back to their tormentors responsible for their insanity and their shattered tabula rasa - may be healed. The innocent Jewish victims of the Palestinians' struggle to live as free human beings on their own continuously inhabited ancestral lands against their inhuman oppressors, I hope will heal too - an innocent people traumatized by the first Holocaust, and then by the struggles against their own criminal oppression by another innocent peoples whom they gratuitously victimized, have a long and arduous self-healing process in front of them. It's time both sides were allowed to start the process by vehemently and righteously rejecting the insanely criminal and largely unexamined axioms, the anachronistic first cause celebra of their entire modern misery and the root cause of war mongering and suffering in the entire Middle East, from their midst. There is no reason, in the modernity of the 21st century, to have an Apartheid pariah state in our midst that has co-opted the very definition of justice from the lexicon of Western languages, and continues to create new innocent victims on a daily basis and has been doing so since its very inception in 1896, when its founder claimed along the banks of the Swiss Rhine: "In Basle I founded the Jewish state ... Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it".
And most assuredly, there is no reason for any people, be they well intentioned, or ideological, who may have supported it in the past, to continue doing so in the present, except with monumentally criminal intent of perpetuating crimes against a beleaguered humanity.
If an EU can transpire after killing each other for centuries and upon the ashes of 50 million dead just in the 20th century, with the determined will and singular focus to do so, a unified Palestine-Israel is a far more natural and historical reconstitution except for the relative newcomer European Zionism parasite that has hijacked the region, and continually prevents and distorts its reseeding with red herrings up the wazoo. It's time to finally endeavor creating the long cherished and elusive dream of a peaceful and fairer future for all of our children by the construction of a non-Apartheid equal and just state for all its inhabitants in Israel-Palestine.
Indeed a true "Zion that will light up all the world", one that can finally claim to be the genuine moral inheritor of the Ten Commandments, and of the noble Prophet - whom all three faiths in the region honor and respect, sharing in the same Abrahamic moral traditions - who identified his flock as God's chosen peoples!
Thank you

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at


[1] An editor of the website "Dissident Voice" challenged this quote with the following comment: "i submit that you need a first-hand sourcing here; see". The full quote, that I checked on the microfiche in a local public library, where only the afternoon edition of the New York Times of 14 April 1983 was on the roll of microfiche, is as follows:
'Jerusalem, April 13 - ... There is a widespread conviction among Palestinian Arabs that the Israelis want to make life miserable for them and thereby drive them out of the territories.
This was reinforced by reported remarks Tuesday by the outgoing Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, Lieut. Gen. Rafael Eytan. Israeli radio, television and newspapers quoted him as telling the Parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that for every incident of stone-throwing by Arab youths, 10 settlements should be built. "When we have settled the land," he was quoted as saying, "all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle." ' (Emphasis added. New York Times, late edition, Thursday 14 April 1983, page A3, story by David K. Shipler, titled "Most West Bank Arabs Blaming U.S. for Impasse")
It is possible that the quote I have cited in the main text of the essay from the web, was originally from the morning edition, or was assembled from multiple stories as that edition contained many stories on Israel-Palestine. Also see Wikipedia at, and the image at for presumably a citation in original Hebrew. The similarity of wording and sentiments expressed in both, only prove the main theme of this essay - the endless trail of red herrings.
The "cockroach" peddler met his verminous fate of the Pharaoh as noted at The BBC itself reported the quote in question in their own story as follows:
'Mr Eitan was politically right-wing and opposed the handing over of land to Palestinians as part of peace talks.
He often used blunt language. He once said: "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."
Mr Eitan was also criticised by the Kahan Commission, which investigated the massacre of Palestinian refugees by an Israeli-allied Christian militia during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
The Commission said he should have anticipated the danger and opposed sending the Christians into the camp.' (Emphasis added. BBC News, Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, 10:07 GMT, "Former Israeli army chief drowns")
It made me intensely depressed to read-back to 24 years ago and to reflect that the goodly American nation has continually permitted a most monumental crime under its own watchful eyes with its full budgetary support, while its supposedly democratic peoples busily pursue their own "American Dreams". A genocide that can be so easily averted by the world is allowed to continue, it seems, only for the pleasure of future historians and moralists to make a good living peddling history books and pontificating morality. Here is an interesting quote from the same A3 page, just underneath the above article, that shows that the only thing that's changed on the playing field of fait accompli, is more faits accomplis, bigger holes in the swiss cheese Buntustans, and a generation further besieged, through the direct funding of a great populace democracy:
"Washington, April 13 - A House Foreign Affairs subcommittee has quietly increased the amount of military and economic grants for Israel by $365 million over the amount request by the Reagan Administration for the 1984 fiscal year, committee members said today.
They said the Administration had requested $785 million in economic grants and this was raised by $65 million to $850 million.
The Administration also had requested $1.7 billion in military aid, of which $550 million would be in the form of grants and the rest in loans. The committee, which is headed by Representative Lee H. Hamilton, Democrat of Indiana, decided to allow $850 million to be in the form of grants - an increase of $300 million - leaving just $850 million to be repaid, instead of more than $1.1 billion." (New York Times, late edition, Thursday 14 April 1983, page A3, story titled "Panel increases Grants for Israel")
[2] The distinguished Phyllis Bennis is in equally distinguished company here. Let's witness former American President Jimmy Carter selectively exercise his tender conscience with his serendipitous book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid". In his speech at George Washington University, as reported by the Associated Press and carried by Israeli newspaper Haaretz at, he noted:
'He said he was not accusing Israel of racism nor referring to its treatment of Arabs within the country. "I defined apartheid very carefully as the forced segregation by one people of another on their own land," he said. ...
On the West Bank, Carter said, Palestinians were victims of oppression, their homes and land confiscated to make way for subsidized Israeli settlers.
"The life of Palestinians is almost intolerable," he said. "And even though Israel agreed to give up Gaza and remove Jewish settlers from the territory, there is no freedom for the people of Gaza and no access to the outside world."
"They have no real freedom of all," Carter said.
By apartheid, Carter said he meant the forced segregation of one people by another. He said Israel's policies in the territories are contrary to the tenets of the Jewish faith.
"There will be no peace until Israel agrees to withdraw from all occupied Palestinian territory," he said, while leaving room for some land swaps that would permit Jews to remain on part of the West Bank in exchange for other Israeli-held land to be taken over by Palestinians.
"Withdrawal would dramatically reduce any threat to Israel," he said.'
The distinguished President Carter noted the definition of "all occupied Palestinian territory" very carefully suggesting that 'he was not accusing Israel of racism nor referring to its treatment of Arabs within the country. "I defined apartheid very carefully as the forced segregation by one people of another on their own land," he said'. This might be forgivable oversight of memory or lack of geography knowledge for an ordinary mortal, but for a 39th former president of a superpower nation who is also a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and who dares to speak out serendipitously in favor of a beleaguered peoples, but only goes part of the way as if some enormous invisible barrier is blocking him, it is entirely inexplicable.
Perhaps despite being a president who once had all the secrets of the State (and the world) at his finger tips, he hadn't rightly been informed by the '14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board' who resigned to protest his book, or by the 'Jewish groups and some fellow Democrats' from whom he 'drew fire', of the Jews own history of laments of the type disclosed in this essay, including this very poignant one:
"The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba - the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time - 1,380,000 people - were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust." (Tanya Reinhart: “Israel/Palestine - How to End the War of 1948”, excerpt from very first page)
[3] There are obviously a minuscule number of "Kibbutz Zionists" living in Israel, perhaps less than 1% as I am advised, who love to live the Kibbutzim life style, toiling and soiling in a cooperative whereby the community helps raise each others' children. A vast majority of them supposedly are irreligious and "Leftist" by inclination, and are also largely portrayed by their exponents as non-violent peaceable peoples who settled in Palestine before 1948 (albeit the ones I know who have lived this life arrived in Galilee much after the construction of the Apartheid state). Noam Chomsky himself once noted on the public airwaves to Amy Goodman on her radio talk show Democracy Now, that he too lived there in the 1950s for a short period, and every time he would look out over the horizon, he would feel immensely saddened that another peoples had been forcibly and inhumanly deprived of their land in order to achieve Zion. He had noted on the airwaves, as I recall, that he couldn't morally take the incongruence of the situation and decided to return back to the United States. To this humble plebeian, it appears that these intellectual idealists, and others like them including those self-proclaimed "dissenters" who continually express deep remorse and anguish at what the Zionist founders perpetuated to create 'Der Judenstaat' in the midst of an already continuously inhabited peoples living there for millennia, must concede, if they indeed do not espouse a Nietzscheian morality, that they should be able to live together in equitably sharing the land of Canaan with all its indigenous peoples. Thus the word "Zionism", without any qualification, predominantly refers to the glaring monstrous elephant dancing on the newlywed's bed of racist murderous Zionism that was unleashed by Theodor Herzl in 1896 when he proclaimed “In Basle I founded the Jewish state ... Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.”, and which was subsequently orchestrated to create an exclusive "Jews-Only" state with "Jews-Only-roads-and-suburbs-and-rights" in the heartland of Palestine. See Lenni Brenner's incredible online book "Zionism in the Age of Dictators" at
Given the manifest reality of deliberate and endless red herrings on the ground, anyone not coming out loudly against Zionism itself as the world silently spectates its global power-play, and not demanding its immediate and outright dismantling and full restitution to its victims, is complicit in the on going murder and genocide of an innocent peoples, all their self-flagellation and words of remorse not withstanding. Thus see for instance, "The complete text of The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East" at: Also examine the former American President, Jimmy Carter's anemic condemnation of Israel, and his restricting the critique in "Palestine Peace not Apartheid" to the still ill-conceived two-state solution space. A just and more forthright person might have produced a work titled "Palestine, Justice not Apartheid"!
[4] It is rather bizarre that President Carter in the spirited defense of his book against the Zionist exponents of Israel, should so circumspectly state that 'He said he was not accusing Israel of racism nor referring to its treatment of Arabs within the country.' Not possessing the distinguished credentials of being a former President of the lone superpower country in the universe, and not having won any Nobel Peace prizes either, I must confess I cannot understand the tepidity or wisdom of President Carter. As a mere plebeian, I must rather straightforwardly ask him and the reader, why? Why is Jimmy Carter not accusing Israel of racism, nor referring to her treatment of Arabs within the country?
What is a courageous former President - guarded 24x7 by the Secret Service, and possessing all that he may ever desire in the world already in the back pockets of his accomplished and full life - so fearful of, that he should go out of his way to assert his definition of "Apartheid" in the title of his book to: "I defined apartheid very carefully as the forced segregation by one people of another on their own land", and deliberately restrain himself from not seeing the direct and immediate parallels with South Africa? Did he come by this arbitrary definition through whim, fear, or through some "ubermensch" principle of morality?
Please permit this rather plebeian scribe to have the chutzpah to remind a distinguished luminary-scholar-humanitarian-extraordinaire of the modern political world of the words of Haim Cohen, former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel (as noted by Tariq Ali in “To be Intimidated is to be an Accomplice”
“The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and racist argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the inflammatory laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official definition of Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel” (quoted in Joseph Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel NY, 1960, P.156)’
And all can easily glean the expansion of this statement by the former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, in “Zionism as Jewish National Socialism”:
"According to Halachah, classic Judaism's laws and customs, for example "compassion towards others" extends to Jews only. Murder or manslaughter is judged mildly when the perpetrator is Jewish and the victim a non-Jew. Also according to Halachah, it is accepted for a Jew to kill a non-Jew if he is laying claim to "eternal Jewish land". This is what the settlers' religious organisations are alleging. There is no corresponding law in Israel's judicial system but in effect it influences the system as punishment of such crimes is very mild. Israel's state terrorism, theft of land and occupation, demolition of houses, the building of the Wall etc including the so called 'extra-judicial killings' (assassinations), are seen by Zionists as legitimate defence of the Nation and therefore fall under international law - which Israel ignores [..] Buber critisised Nazism while commending the Jewish Religion (Hassidism) but keeping quiet about its dehumanising of non-Jews (goyim). These double standards act to increase Israel's chauvinism and hatred of all non-Jews." (Lasse Wilhelmson “Zionism as Jewish National Socialism”
And we can trivially see empirical evidence of "These double standards act to increase Israel's chauvinism and hatred of all non-Jews" in despicable racist "ubermensch" statements like the following one by Moshe Katsav, former President of Israel, that inexplicably seem to remain incognizant among the powerful and distinguished critics of Israel-Palestine blot on humanity, including the author of "Palestine, Peace not Apartheid":
"There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, they are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy." (Moshe Katsav, President of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001)
It is incredible how powerful the lapses of some short term memories can be – perhaps Moshe Katsav has forgotten the Jewish Ghettos from New York to Poland that the Jews inhabited not too long ago themselves. Furthermore, this was their unfortunate 'state of being' when they were free and no military occupying power was constricting them to death. The beleaguered peoples whom the former President of Israel finds so easy to belittle as "not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy", on the other hand are living under a brutal Israeli military occupation after they were already once evicted from their own lands when the Zionist state was first constructed in their peaceful midst, and forced into the subsequently second whammy of military occupation of even that small parcel of land. Generations have been wasted under the murderous occupiers' watchful gun turrets. Shame! What has happened to the humanity of these Israelis? Why should the world take any sympathy on these peoples anymore for their holocaust? They are handing the same systematic genocide to another innocent peoples – only spread out across generations and in plain sight of the silently spectating world. Witness the following comments of an American President Harry S. Truman from his Diary July 21, 1947. Every word of it is reflected in the Zionist Jews’ own merciless actions in Palestine since the founding of Israel in 1948:
“The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler not Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog.”
So upon which "ubermensch" principle of morality has the distinguished President Carter come up with his definition of Apartheid? Hasn't he even bothered to read the late Daniel Pearl's wife, Marriane Pearl's touching autobiographical book in memory of her murdered husband "A Mighty Heart", in which on page 15 she writes of the newest and latest DNA technologies being employed in Israel for the ultimate in racism and Apartheid that even far surpasses South Africa:
"Last October, at a film festival in Montreal, I won an award for a controversial documentary I made for French and German public television about Israel's use of genetic screening. Under Israel's Law of Return, almost any Jew has the right to return to the ancient homeland. But how do you make sure someone is actually Jewish? To determine who qualifies, Israeli authorities have used DNA testing to examine applicants' genetic makeup. My film explored the political and sociological implications of this process, which are confusing and disturbing." (Marriane Pearl "A Mighty Heart" page 15)
I am only assuming that the former President Carter does not receive his daily briefings from the White House anymore, and therefore may not have kept up with the latest news in racism of Israel's innate makeup! Can some courageous reader put the afore asked questions before the former American President publicly where he is compelled to respond as the world continually fawns their oohs and aahs at just the thought of a former President of the United States of America even thinking of criticizing Israel?
I am sorry that I am less than impressed, credentials or no credentials. One does not need to be in possession of the title of "President" to see the difference between "good and evil" or to be "beyond" it, or indeed, does one? Seems like all the moralist thinking of people like Hannah Arendth in profound lamentary books such as "Eichmann in Jerusalem - A Report on the Banality of Evil" is mainly confined to the crimes committed against the mighty "ubermensch" themselves! Also see comment (the first one) on Time Magazine's 'The Middle East' blog in response to an amazing article by Phil Zabriskie titled "Reading Between, Over, Around the Lines..." March 8, 2007, at, comment reproduced below:
' "There might well be a fair number of people who think that a state of conflict, marked often by violence and at times death, is the natural state of things here, that endless cycles of mutual antagonism, persecution, and victimization is how its supposed to be, a kind of prophecy foretold."
I am not an expert on prophesy, but certainly commonsense suggests that evil flourishes because many good people choose to remain silent, and those who perpetuate it ["state of conflict"] are usually ordinary peoples - as noted by Hannah Arendth in "Eichmann in Jerusalem - A Report on the Banality of Evil". And when she observed the "ordinariness" of Adolph Eichmann, she was "reprimanded", putting it charitably. Because we always like to perceive that horrible crimes are only committed by super horrible peoples, and ordinary peoples have no role in being "good Germans".
I would like to draw your kind attention to "the endless trail of red herrings" on this topic that even conscionable and distinguished writers, in mainstream, as well as dissent-stream, keep perpetuating, unable to see past the mythologies and red herrings with their own good commonsense.
Please see my humble article on with the above title.
I hope you do publish my comment - it is very difficult to have an ordinary person, a plebeian, have his voice heard - it's always the special interests who get the airwaves/mainstream to themselves. Perhaps Time can be courageous enough to change that - and run my article as their cover story? A plebeian can dream of a time when their own voices can inform the peoples, can't he?
Thank you
Zahir Ebrahim
Founder Project HumanbeingsfirstTM
c/o humanbeingsfirst at gmail com '
[5] Noam Chomsky had written to me 'Furthermore, you are apparently unaware that I have, since childhood, been a very vocal advocate of a binational state as part of a broader federation. But I stress the word "advocate."' while he continued to justify the two-state solution with "impracticality" and what appeared to me to be specious political expediency arguments. Thus I had informed him that I was going to let him respond publicly, and I eagerly look forward to him cogently explaining his positions "loud and clear" in the light of this essay in which I have, as a non-scholar, rather an ordinary plebeian, challenged his profound wisdom based upon the moral imperatives that I am compelled to humbly spell out in my essay "Responsibility of Intellectuals – Redux".
I have to admit here of my own close sense of affinity to Noam Chomsky as his lifelong student once upon a time, and as his nondescript student at MIT while studying EECS, where I first learned about the "real" US Foreign Policies. And as one who has benefited from Chomsky's moral teachings and analytical techniques of news deconstruction tremendously, some of the lessons learned I hope are also exhibited in this essay. As I wrote to Chomsky, and which I excerpt below, my humble effort to critically examine his positions in public is as much a matter of my own conscience as that which compels him to stand up to the tyranny of his own nation. I also have to admit that I remained a covetous reader of Noam Chomsky's books and essays throughout my life, until 2003, when new realizations dawned upon me and I stopped being impressed by other peoples' ideas, including Chomsky, and decided to start thinking for myself ab initio. Some of these realizations are also mentioned in my very detailed essay "Dialog Among Civilizations: Whytalksfail? - Part1" in the context of 911, wondering why, the two most notorious gadflies on the planet, Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk, suddenly found new trust and faith in the Government's version of it. These essays are available at, in a feeble plebeian effort once again to speak out against the new unprovoked impending war of "shock and awe" upon another defenseless nation - “and I still curse the killers, their accomplices, the indifferent spectators who knew [or now know] and kept silent”.
"First let me genuinely once again acknowledge the debt of gratitude that I have for you being my teacher most of my adult life. We have a saying in Urdu, loosely translated, it says - 'the cat is the auntie of the lion'. It means the cat taught everything to the lion, except to climb the tree. Obviously to save its own skin. In our culture, as well as I am sure in other cultures, we often refer to experts and teachers and other specialists who hold things back from their students and under-studies, with similar phrases. Such a phrase, is entirely unjust for you. You have indeed never held anything back as far as teaching your mind to anyone and everyone who has wanted to learn. And for this, I am most grateful. And to some tiny extent, I am applying the skills learnt from you, to attempt to disarm you, and other Zionists like you, intellectually speaking. I am not an intellectual, nor an erudite scholar, but a mere ordinary person who is now a minor social worker [..] and a small time grass-roots justice activist. To the extent I succeed in checking you, it must surely make you happy that you taught well. To the extent I fail, it is my own shortcomings and a limitation of my own small mind."

Web Citations
Citations sourced from's snapshot of May 15, 2007, in order to get the original working embedded links in the cited urls
01: "DocumentID"
02: "Project Humanbeingsfirst"
03: "Discussion Space"
04: "Facing Mecca - Uri Avnery"
05: "Facing Mecca - Uri Avnery"
06: "What Price Oslo? - Edward Said"
07: "End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After- Edward Said"
08: "Peace And Its Discontents - Edward Said"
09: "From Oslo to Iraq and the Roadmap - Edward Said"
10: "Bernard Lewis in Foreign Affairs"
11: "Can you really not see - Amira Hass"
12: "When Will Our Turn Come? - Israel Shahak"
13: "Worlds Apart - Feb 6, 2006",,1703245,00.html
14: "Brothers in arms: Israel's secret pact with Pretoria - Feb 7, 2006",,1704037,00.html
15: "Apartheid in the Holy Land - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Apr 29, 2002"
16: "Israel is not comparable to advanced western democracies - Human Rights Report, May 1990"
17: "Israel's Discriminatory Practices Are Rooted in Jewish Religious Law - Dr. Israel Shahak"
18: "Zionism Mandates Official Discrimination Against Non Jews - Sheldon Richman, Jan 1992"
19: "'Who is a Jew' Matters in Israel - Sheldon Richman, March 1990"
20: "Unrecognised villages in the Negev expose Israel's apartheid policies - Dec 21, 2005"
21: "Israeli Apartheid - Bruce Dixon, July 20, 2006"
22: "'Democratic' racism (1) - Johnathan Cook, July 14, 2004"
23: "'Democratic' racism (2) - Johnathan Cook, July 14, 2004"
24: "Arab spouses face Israeli legal purge - Ben Lynfield, May 15, 2006"
25: "SECOND CLASS Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools - Human Rights Watch, 2001"
26: "Is Israel an Apartheid State?"
27: "The history of Israeli Zionism, Apartheid and racism - World History Archives"
28: "Jewish History Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years - Israel Shahak"
29: "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel - Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinski"
30: "Carter: Israeli apartheid 'worse' - Dec 11, 2006"
31: "The Writings of Israel Shamir For One Democratic State In The Whole of Palestine (Israel)"
32: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History - Norman Finkelstein"
33: "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering - Norman Finkelstein"
34: "My Holiday, Their Tragedy - Baruch Kimmerling, April 17, 2002"
35: "To Be Intimidated is to be an Accomplice: Notes on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and Palestine - Tariq Ali, March 4, 2004"
36: "Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary and other documents. Forward by Noam Chomsky - Livia Rokach"
37: "The Jews of Iraq - Naeim Giladi, Interview March 16, 1998"
38: "Palestinians Have A Right To Go Home - Phyllis Bennis, Sept 03, 2000"
39: "Institute for Policy Studies 'An Institute for the rest of us - I.F. Stone' Website"
40: "UN Resolution 3379"
41: "UN Resolutions and maps - Women's International League for Peace and Freedom"
42: "Rethinking the Middle East - Bernard Lewis in Foreign Affairs, Fall 1992"
43: "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives - Zbigniew Brzezinski"
44: "The Anti-Zionist Resolution - Bernard Lewis in Foreign Affairs, Oct 1976"
45: "Intellectuals and the Responsibilities of Public Life - Interview with Noam Chomsky, May 27, 2001"
46: "An Exchange on 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals' - Noam Chomsky debates.. April 20, 1967"
47: "The Responsibility of Intellectuals - Noam Chomsky, Feb 23, 1967"
48: "Rogue States - Noam Chomsky"
49: "Rogue States Draw the Usual Line - Interview with Noam Chomsky, May 2001"
50: "Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs - Noam Chomsky"
51: "World Orders Old and New - Noam Chomsky"
52: "The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) report on Rebuilding America's Defenses, Sept 2000"
53: "Nancy Pelosi Gives a Pep Talk to AIPAC - Mark Gaffney, March 27, 2005"
54: "Pelosi Speaking to AIPAC, America-Israel Public Affairs Committee April 2003"
55: "The Storm over the Israel Lobby - Michael Massing, June 8, 2006"
56: "American lawmakers swarm to Israel during August recess - Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Nov 1, 2003"
57: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm - 1996 recommendations to Israeli PM Netanyahu"
58: "Project for the New American Century"
59: "The Middle East Conflict: Zionist Quotes"
60: "Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV' - CNN"
61: "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering - Norman Finkelstein's Website"
62: "Is there a holocaust 'industry'? by the BBC's Andre Vornic, Jan 26, 2000"
63: "Controversial Jewish Professor takes on 'Holocaust Industry' April 30, 2002"
64: "Terrorist speech threatens, and U-M shouldn't permit it - Debbie Schlussel, Oct 21, 2002"
65: "Campus-Watch: A project of the Middle East Forum - Website"
66: "David Horowitz's Website"
67: "Islamic Mein Kampf - A production by David Horowitz"
68: "Rachel Corrie's Memorial Website 1979-2003"
69: "International Solidarity Movement archive for Tom Hurndall"
70: "We Cannot Allow These Murders to Go Unpunished - Gerald Kaufman, April 12, 2006"
71: "The Theology of Christian Zionism - PBS NOW"
72: "Christian Zionism"
73: "From Occupied Palestine - Palestinian voices"
74: "Middle East Window - Samia Nasir Khoury, Palestinian voices"
75: "Justice and Liberation - Samia Nasir Khoury, Palestinian voices"
76: "Raising Yousuf Unplugged: diary of a Palestinian mother, Palestinian voices"
77: "Jerusalemites 'Children of Ibda'a' - A Documentary by S. Smith Patrick, Palestinian voices"
78: "ZNET Middle East Watch: Hannan Ashrawi Essays - Palestinian voices"
79: "Eye on Palestine - The Applied Research Institute, Jerusalem, Palestinian voices"
80: "The Palestinian Right to Return Group Website - Palestinian voices"
81: "Call to Action: Building the Platform for a Pan Arab Consensus - June 2003, Palestinian voices"
82: "Sharing the Land of Cannan - Post Arafat One state, Palestinian voices"
83: "Two-State Solution Again Sells Palestinians Short - George Bisharat, Jan 25, 2004, Palestinian voices"
84: "Sharing the Land of Cannan - Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, Pluto Press, Palestinian voices"
85: "Films @ Palestine Online Store - Palestinian voices"
86: "Forced Migration Review26: Palestinian displacement: a case apart? Refugee Studies Center, University of Oxford, Palestinian voices"
87: "Refugees In Our Own Land, Chronicles from a Palestinian Refugee Camp in Bethlehem - Muna Hamzeh, Palestinian voices"
88: "The United Jerusalem Foundation, Palestinian voices"
89: "Refugees In Our Own Land, Chronicles from a Palestinian Refugee Camp in Bethlehem - Muna Hamzeh, Palestinian voices"
90: "SourceWatch: Alyssa A. Lappen"
91: "Columbia U's Radical Middle East Faculty - Alyssa A. Lappen and Jonathan Calt Harris, FrontPageMagazine, March 18, 2003"
92: "Daniel Pipes' Website"
93: "AIPAC's Website"
94: "American Enterprise Institute Website"
95: "Alan Dershowitz Website"
96: "Anti-Defamation League Website"
97: "Copyright Law of the United States of America, Chapter 5, Copyright Infringement and Remedies"
98: "US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"
99: "A Summary of United Nations Agreements on Human Rights"
100: "The Patriot Acts: Sneak Attack on Civil Liberties - Patriot Act II Fact Sheet"
101: "The Constitution of the United States of America"

Article II
Palestine: The Struggle Forward

Zahir Ebrahim
May 12, 2010

I have realized over my many years of interaction with Zionists, that many among them genuinely believe what this anonymous person under the nom de plume “Ahmad Yaqeen”, has stated in his comment to Joseph Massad's Al-Ahram Weekly article 'The Language of Zionism' here. [1]
'The Arabs not only rejected partition, but attacked Israel from all sides. On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “jihad”, a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated, “I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!” ... The fact remains that Israel is a nation state that existed 2400 years before Islam where a Nation referred to as Palestine and the Palestinian people never existed. ... When the State of Israel was reborn in 1948 c.e., the “Palestinians” did not exist yet, the Arabs had still not discovered that "ancient" people. They were too busy with the purpose of annihilating the new Sovereign State and did not intend to create any Palestinian entity, but only to distribute the land among the already existing Arab states. They were defeated. They attempted again to destroy Israel in 1967, and were humiliated in only six days, in which they lost the lands that they had usurped in 1948. In those 19 years of Arab occupation of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, neither Jordan nor Egypt suggested to create a “Palestinian” state, since the still non-existing Palestinians would have never claimed their alleged right to have their own state… Paradoxically, during the British Mandate, it was not any Arab group but the Jews that were known as “Palestinians”! ' (Comment By Zionist robot “Ahmad Yaqeen”)
When strident young Jews imbued with the spirit of Zionism make their “Aliyah” to reclaim their lost paradise from those 'untermensch' occupying their Promised Holy Lands, they are not just playing frivolous word games, or indulging in weekend protest marches shouting at the top of their lungs for justice to prevail in the Holy Lands only to go back to their own “bread and circuses” the next day. These young Zionists are actually quite dedicated, willing to sacrifice themselves for the categorical imperative inculcated into them since birth. To their mind, Israel Project is a moral self-defense to simply reclaim what has been theirs for 3000 years – as Shimon Peres remarked on the occasion of the 60th birthday celebration of Israel to George W. Bush: “Welcome to the new Israel: Three thousand years old, and going on sixty”. The underpinnings of the zealotry behind that celebration is examined here. [2]
As seen by these Zionist zealots, mankind throughout the ages had only usurped what was granted to the Jews by their god as a sacred gift – and the modern Zionists are merely reclaiming their own properties from the bad Goy, from the evil Amelekites divinely ordained to perdition at their hands anyway, and none shall stand in the holy way of their jihad. I personally know of no Palestinian in Diaspora who can match that zealotry and commitment to cause of the Zionists. Most Palestinians I know or have met in my life are content with shedding tears in silent remembrance, which of course breaks out in boisterous sloganeering every now and then, but ultimately take their Nakba “whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed to mankind”, as a divine test. “Hasbi-Allahu-wa-nai'mul-wakeel” is a common prayer on many a quivering Muslim lip. But I have seen many Jewish younglings in Zionists garb who have scared me by their Zionist fervor in no less a measure than perhaps any mind-controlled suicide bomber would scare me.
The fact that Zionism also killed off their god after he had made them his 'chosen peoples' and issued them Holy Land grants, is not insignificant, nor a nonsequitur. It is a real philosophy! It forms the real impetus behind the self-empowerment and self-reliance of the Jews in the precise tradition of Talmudic Judaism. This phenomenon has to be comprehended at many complex levels in order to understand the unusual and unmatched power of Zionistan in the world today. A tiny minority's minority which can ride a sole superpower with just the flick of a wick, as well as all the mighty European powers who just 70 to 100 years ago were purportedly so very antagonistic to them, with such brazen impunity! What's the source of such inexplicable power? Is the Jewish State comparable to South Africa? We only see the effects in common – which leads some to believe that the same sort of tactics as were used to end Apartheid in South Africa can also work on the Jewish State. Most fail to recognize that the Jewish State of modernity is unlike any other. It has the protection of an “Iron Wall” which never mind breach, few can even see. It is a singularity, an inexplicability whose parallel does not exist in the non-mythical annals of history.
Acquiring this comprehension appears to be a limiting challenge for victims of Zionism. This is empirically in evidence even as I write this. For instance, take these conscionable peoples clamoring for BDS against Israel. I am sorry to suggest that they are being taken for the same sort of ride on a treadmill as I was when I answered the moral call of International ANSWER and participated in the protest marches in 2002-2003 hoping to avert the horrendously criminal invasion of Iraq. Since I am also an engineer by training, and performing postmortem of why things work and don't work is part of my analytical profession which itself relies on the intelligent use of “Mens et Manus” (i.e., mind and hand) to understand real world problems and engineer real world solutions that must work in order to continue collecting a paycheck, I applied that propensity borne of training to understand why the protests had not worked. How could millions of protesting peoples have been so trivially dismissed as a “focus group”? The same way that BDS will be dismissed. It was examined here. [3]
The postmortems were revealing to me. And that's when I stopped attending protest marches as a means to bringing change, and more as a means to meeting other activists, and perhaps venting my lungs off its burden. Just a little bit of independent thinking, away from the influence peddling of all the lauded dissent chiefs of the West, had showed me what had been staring me in the face all my life and I just hadn't seen it. It had indeed taken a catalyzing event like the “new pearl harbor”, not just for Brzezinski's “imperial mobilization”, but also for me to finally grasp that as a matter of Machiavellian statecraft in free societies, opposition to the exercise of hegemony by its conscionable peoples must be put on treadmills of inefficacy as a matter of governance. And this can only be accomplished by systematically instrumenting false leaders, false scholars, false dissent-chiefs, and glamorizing them enough for their public stances against hegemony, that energetic people of conscience rebelling against the tyranny of status quo will naturally gravitate towards them for moral guidance. When a pied piper leads you, how do you know where he or she is really taking you? How do you know what he really means by the words he uses to inform you? How do you know her motivation? This was explored here by this scribe, and here by Peter Schweizer, research fellow at the Hoover Institution. [4]
The Language of Zionism described by Joseph Massad, as are my examples drawn from PNAC and Brzezinski – such as “American peace”, “moral clarity”, “benevolent order” – quoted in my earlier comment to Massad's article on the same website, are only the most egregious but rather transparent examples. There are far more sophisticated mechanisms of deception, such as calculated omissions, half-truths, echoing the axioms of empire while appearing to critique its effects, and “neuro-linguistic programming”. This latter mechanism relies on subliminal manipulation and is explained here. [5]
Calculated omission is perhaps the most crafty tool of persuasion as it relies on ignorance – for who can have complete knowledge of every subject? Aldous Huxley aptly called it the “iron curtain”:
'The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.' (Aldous Huxley, 1946 Preface to Brave New World, 1931)
Keeping thinking peoples plausibly occupied lest they discover the real levers of power is much more complicated than mere manufacturing consent among the masses who are rather easily amenable to simple propaganda. That science of mass persuasion is already well understood, thanks to the pioneering work of Edward Bernays and the Mighty Wurlitzer, not to overlook Goebbels and Hitler, as the engineering of consent from the majority. The minority of thoughtful peoples however, also often the people of conscience, pose a different problem. They can actually think and not easily prone to the mass propaganda. If not craftily waylaid, they stand to acquire some real comprehension of the otherwise carefully hidden from the masses in plainsight, conspiratorial forces which actually shape their world. The rebels can also potentially figure out that the visible rulers whom they elect with such gravitas every four years, to presumably run their country on their behalf in a celebration of democracy which affords them the choice of twiddledee and twiddledum in a carefully choreographed Hegelian Dialectic, are actually not their public servants. To hide the fact that these psychopaths – at least on the prima facie evidence of their bizarre penchant for incessant war-mongering upon innocent peoples – whom they elect with such fanfare, are really the errand boys of an invisible oligarchy, manufacturing dissent is a necessary instrument of statecraft. It can be studied here and here. [6]
With that necessary detour to illustrate how the Western peoples are manipulated between the manufacturing of consent and manufacturing of dissent – the social engineering of obedience – so that it can become really difficult to comprehend the choices one is making when one follows the pied pipers, trends, and popular movements, let's return to our main topic of understanding the forces which drive Zionism.
While some think that Zionism is the invention of Theodor Herzl, it isn't. Hardly anyone among the Palestinians I know has ever heard of Rabbi Moses Hess, who was in fact the first modern Zionist. He invented the 'Roman Jerusalem' in 1828 with Rothschild's blessings, some suggest also fundings. The fact that the Balfour Declaration was addressed to a Rothschild elder, is very significant for understanding the uncanny power of Zionism. Read Zionism's own Moses' divine tablet Rome and Jerusalem here. [7]
Both Moses Hess' Zionism, as well as its offspring, the Jewish State, trace its theology of “will to normalize the existence of the Jewish people”, as Leo Strauss put it, to the Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism. Israel Shahak examined it in his book: Jewish History, Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years. It can be read here. [8]
And here is Leo Strauss explaining a primacy which in reality is more than 2000 years old, rather than having only just invented it himself in the prominent atheism of the twentieth century after god was declared dead by Nietzsche in the previous century:
'Political Zionism has repeatedly characterized itself as the will to normalize the existence of the Jewish people, to normalize the Jewish people. By this self-definition it has exposed itself to a grave misunderstanding, namely, the misunderstanding that the will to normality was the first word of political Zionism; the most effective criticism of political Zionism rests on this misunderstanding. In truth, the presupposition of the Zionist will to normalization, that is, of the Zionist negation of galut [exile], is the conviction that “the power of religion has been broken”. Because the break with religion has been resolutely effected by many individual Jews, and only because of this reason, it is possible for these individuals to raise the question on behalf of their people, how the people is to live from now on. Not that they prostrate themselves before the idol of normality; on the contrary: they no longer see any reason for the lack of normality. And this is decisive: in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state. ...' (page 202, Leo Strauss, The Early Writings 1921-1932)
Look at that last sentence: “And this is decisive: in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state. ...”
With the negation of god in the above narratives, where did the Jewish people get its land, and its state?
So most thinking people tend to dismiss all this illogic of Zionism as gibberish of some sick minds, as double standards, and as hypocrisy. In my view, it is none of that, unless evil can be defined as “sick”. I don't a priori. A philosophy or an idea is only evil in relation to an absolute standard of good. Otherwise, like Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court had stated in 1951: “Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrases, a standard has meaning only when associated with the considerations which give birth to nomenclature. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative.”
In other words, Zionism in the modern context is just another relative concept beyond the purview of absolute definitions of good and evil. It is whatever the reigning power wants it to be. If it says it's moral, then it's moral. In fact, it is seeded in respectable philosophy by Western standards. It is the philosophy of Spinoza and Nietzsche in modern times, and of Plato in ancient times. It is the philosophy of the ubermensch who by the very nature of being uber alles, are licensed to define their own standards of morality (and this is how the Straussian's read Plato's virtuous divine philosopher-king: since divine is dead, so philosopher is king, and therefore can create his own definition of virtue – which is effectively what you see Leo Strauss writing above). And this is also precisely how Vladimir Jabotinsky defined the morality of Zionism in his seminal 1923 article The Iron Wall. It can be read here. [9]
“Two brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative. We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not. There is no other morality.” (Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall).
This attitude of defining morality by one's own ubermensch definition is a very profoundly banal philosophy with direct Talmudic roots. It is banal because it's the philosophy of any godfather. It is profound because it has been turned into a respectable philosophy by great minds. A philosophy which bastardized the Biblical Moses' moral message to the Semitic Jews of Canaan of an absolute moral Covenant between God and its “Chosen Peoples” (perhaps for spreading the divine light among mankind – otherwise why else?), to an ubermensch 'chosen peoples' created to lord upon the “goy”. There is simply no other rational and commonsensical way of semantically capturing the rise and fall of Judaism from divine to uber alles, whether or not one believes in divinity. Judaism is empirical, as is Christianity, and so is Islam, Hinduism, and Bhuddism, the major surviving ancient dogmas and religions of mankind today. As a philosophy, all great religions of mankind have some universalistic spiritual and moral underpinnings. Only the 'ubermensch' Judaism of the three Abrahamic religions acquired this peculiar character of 'uber alles', meaning, above all the others, in its self-defined continuously evolving morality “to normalize the Jewish people”. While Leo Strauss attributes it to the age of atheism, empiricism indicates that this has in fact been the norm of the Rabbis throughout the past 3000 years!
If the existence of Moses isn't merely a mythology as some modern skeptics suggest, and the Jews did indeed receive a sensible moral code from the Prophet like the universalistic Ten Commandments, then, Judaism's corruption to that perversity of the 'ubermensch' was entirely the work of the Talmudic Rabbis. And it was this long historical perversion as the overarching ethos of the Jewish tradition, which enabled casting Zionism as a moral philosophy, a moral imperative of the Jews, and a moral pursuit. Hence anything in opposition to it is by definition immoral. Consequently, it is to be repulsed by any means possible, including 'Noble Lies' (Leo Strauss), and mercilessly killing any goy who might interfere with the existence of the Jewish State, or interfere with its imperatives. This lofty morality of Zionism can be seen in the recent Law Book of Israel, “The King's Torah” (or “The King’s Teaching”) for instance, written by a settler Rabbi occupying the West Bank, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira: “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created”. Read more about it here or here. [10]
This sort of perverse ethos ingrained among the 'chosen peoples' against the 'goy' has endured the vicissitudes of time for over two thousand of years. That's a lot of historical and cultural baggage in ancient to modern books to be carrying upon one's cultural, religious and philosophical back. Such entrenched ethos is the primal motivation for “Aliyah” which none but the Jews who espouse Zionism can appreciate. One cannot underestimate this motivation. It forms the fundamental basis among world's Jewry for supporting the Jewish State no matter where they live. It enables recruiting agents, assets and sayanim from among them as described by Victor Ostrovsky in By Way of Deception. It can be read here. [11]
As formidable and incomparable as that ethos is, it is still mere motivation. Not its enactment, and not its harvesting. Without a harnessing force, the motivation remains still-born. The only way Zionism could find empirical expression globally was with massive funding, massive political power, and massive alignment with ruling imperial powers. Where did all that magically come from? If the Western world was so anti-Semitic, how did the most hated and reviled people in Europe convince their own oppressors? The Zionist narrations tell us of this and that magical powers of persuasion of this or that Zionist leader. Without a prime-moving force backing them, and it being known that they represent that power, such magic is only for bed-time fiction. In the two hundred years since Moses Hess, Zionism's global expression is entirely manufactured with those three instruments mentioned above. Before that, the aspiration for Zion existed mainly in books and in prayers. Its ubermensch Talmudic philosophy only found expression in the Jews' local life among the goyem in various ad hoc forms, primarily as the underpinning of a battle of survival of the minority among an inimical majority who blamed that minority for having killed their lord Jesus. And the Jewish minority under the leadership of their dictatorial Rabbis, holding itself off as superior to all others and refusing integration with the majority. That dynamics was always local until the Zionism of the globalists made it global.
Be it left-wing Zionism or right-wing Zionism, be it diplomatic Zionism or fighting Zionism, be it political Zionism, synthetic Zionism, military Zionism, friendly Zionism, tough-Zionism, gentle-Zionism, hard Zionism, soft Zionism, nihilist Zionism, spiritual Zionism, Labor Zionism, Likud Zionism, pre-Jewish State Zionism, or post-Jewish State Zionism, all remain expressions of tactics for translating motivational Zionism into empirical Zionism.
Without the continuity of an immensely powerful financial prime-mover – from which all else follows – motivational Zionism would remain a theoretical idea in dusty old books to primarily torture young orthodox Jewish seminary students and secular atheists in Western universities with. Who'd ever pursue it as a categorical imperative in the enlightened modernity du jour where Jews can hardly draw on any empirical evidence of their oppression to motivate their flock? Before two hundred years ago, most Jews were not the Zionist of today, even though, they did harbor these same ubermensch underpinnings. The translation of a tortuous philosophy from ancient books to existential global enactment is entirely the premeditated act of fabrication. That requires a prime-moving force. It is the willful act of money, and the willful act of conniving power, a power which can systematically mold, manipulate, corrupt, and indoctrinate across generations, across countries, and across the barriers of time and space. This is not an organic natural spread of a plague – for it could not be sustained for 200 years un-abated! It is more akin to the deliberate spread of a biowarfare agent of maximum penetration. The Zionist robot commenter mentioned in the beginning of this article is a tragic victim of this plague.
That is the only reasonable explanation for how Zionism can simultaneously combine so many opposites without their turning on each other – from vehemently orthodox right-wing Zionist settlers bobbing at the wailing wall praying to their god with guns slung over their shoulders, to the secular atheist left-wing Zionist ideologue fanatics who still believe that being Jew means something divine, uber alles, a race with their own categorical imperatives of primacy.
Whereas antagonists within other religiosities of far less theological dispersion tend to turn their guns upon each other first! Why does that not happen among the Jews? We can have Protestants and Catholics on each others throat, we can have Sunni and Shia on each others throat, but I have never heard of the many different polarities of Zionists in the past 100 years on each others throat. Within just that epoch, we had a 100 million Christians barbarically kill each other, and many million Muslims barbarically kill each other! Not to forget the 6 million Jews of course, mercilessly HolocaustedTM by the Christians, but for which the Muslims are being compelled to pay the price by the Jews and the Christians now inexplicably and suddenly teaming up. If we simply examine the recorded facts of who were the major war-mongers who created and supported all the wars of the twentieth century – the Century of Wars – and who participated in the peace-conferences after each one and what was systematically achieved, a perspective which can finally begin to see the outlines of the trumpeting but apparently invisible elephant in the bedroom quickly emerges. In every single instance, there is only one common prime-mover without which, these synthetic clashes could not have materialized. The owners of the private central banks. As the pithy saying goes: “give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws”. That's because all else follows by simply controlling the instruments of money. Which is why, such a fundamental power is called the prime-mover. It is examined here and here. [12] Suffice it to say, the prime-mover force behind Zionism brings a lot more diabolicalness, and a lot more internal cohesion from its apparent random diversity, to the realization of the physical Jewish State in Palestine than meets the superficial eye. And they are even able to legalize it without causing any internecine bloodshed!
According to Lasse Wilhelmson, there was a law passed in Israel in the mid 1980s which made it illegal to challenge the character of the state of Israel. The nature of the Jewish State cannot be questioned. It is an axiom of Zionism, as well as an axiom of law by the fiat of legality. There can be no political party with a platform which seeks any transformation to the Jewish character of Israel, taking part in its political process. There can be no transformation by the way the axioms of the Jewish state are constructed – some articulated, such as Jabotinsky's assertion that Zionism is moral, and others not. Therefore, realistically, there can be no transformation so long as the prime-movers behind Israel wield the force of Zionism. The visible Zionists, whether in Israel or in the rest of the world, would be powerless without the prime-mover which unites them. Putting it another way, the many colored Zionist robots are merely the replaceable foot-soldiers fabricated in a 'Sony' factory and enacting the diabolical interests of the prime-movers. Perhaps they too are being made a patsy, as a Hegelian Dialectic, just as they routinely make the goyem a patsy. This was explored here. [13] While many reformed Jews who have weaned themselves away from Zionism will freely describe the real abhorrent character of the Jewish State in great honesty, few will dare to address the real prime-mover force behind Zionism. It is almost like a religion of pretense that such a prime-mover force does not exist. See for instance, Lasse Wilhelmson who does a good job on the former, but is inexplicably silent on the latter, in Zionism – more than traditional colonialism and apartheid here. [14]
The Zionist Jews, among all the other peoples on earth, are the ones being criminally forced to most closely live their own baggage of history by these prime-movers. That is an empirical fact which is often not considered by the victims of Zionism in understanding the uncanny forces which drive their formidable enemy. To liberate the Jews from the clutches of Zionism will be a major service to the Jews themselves – they can thank us later. But until that transpires, the motivations which drive Zionism have been made ubiquitous, and its power to mold primary loyalties is empirical and cannot be underestimated. And therefore, must be taken into account by dissecting it both up and down into its precise hierarchy of constituents in order for the struggle for the liberation of the Jews, and the Palestinians, from the clutches of the Zionists, to succeed.
Therefore, focussing on Jewish political action groups like AIPAC, ADL, JDL, Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, et. al., who put Israel first to influence the superpower's policies, or the hundred Jewish-dominated opaquely funded private think-tanks like the AEI, CFR, et. al., who ab initio construct the polices of war and hegemony favoring Israel, without betraying any comprehension of the actual prime-movers behind them, is not only an exercise in futility, but these visible magnets are deliberately there, and manifest themselves with their inexplicable arrogance, precisely in order to draw fire away from the prime-movers!
While many betray that they are aware of the motto “wage war by way of deception”, I am sorely disappointed that very few in the West, never mind among the victimized beleaguered Palestinians, actually betray what it means when it comes to understanding front-men and front-organizations representing a powerful oligarchy. Only as the representatives of some mighty force not in the public eye, do the foot-soldiers in the public eye acquire the immense power that we see them wielding. When the White House and the Congress pays obeisance to AIPAC for instance, they are paying homage to the king behind them. If unfamiliar with this state of affairs, see Colonel Edward Mandell House's depiction in Philip Dru: Administrator. Rather than betray the acuity of having forensically recognized this modern mechanism of statecraft, of wielding power from behind the scenes, recording ex post facto narratives is the epitome of Western scholarship. Not all of it manufactured of course – but much of it suffering from psychological cataracts which enable seeding the faits accomplis of these front-men as “history's actors”:
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' (Senior Bush Advisor, The New York Times, October 17, 2004)
This is why neither protest marches, nor BDS, nor tea-parties, nor sailing to Gaza, nor the ISM's taking bullets to their head in the holy land of oppression, nor bearing witness, nor attempts at reforms, nor end the fed campaign, etceteras, can ever work. Because, these address the symptoms, the mere incantations and projections of power, and not the prime-mover forces behind them. To the extent that these symptomatic motivators are able to rally conscionable well-intentioned thinking peoples behind them, is the extent of the success of fabricated dissent, of putting people on the treadmills of inefficacy. As an engineer, a systems architect bringing a systems analysis perspective to deconstructing political science and social engineering, this is my commonsensical, technical, and empirical assessment. One has to go straight for the jugular of the tiny misanthropic coterie wielding the immense prime-mover force to be effective in overcoming all the abhorrences being seeded by their numerous psychopathic errand boys across the planet, including in Zionistan. See for instance, Who is more guilty of monumental war crimes – the prime-movers or trigger pullers?, here. [15]
It is important to reemphasize: it is not their thoughts or their motivations which are a crime. People are free to have any thoughts, and entitled to believe any crap they want. It is only their acts, or when their motivations lead to, or sustain, or otherwise in any way interfere in redressing the crimes perpetuated against an innocent peoples, which are a crime. The Nuremberg Military Tribunals aptly emphasized that core principle before hanging the old Nazis, military men, civilians, propagandists and philosophers alike (while setting free the principal financial architect of the Third Reich, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, explored here [16]).
“The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes.” (Robert H. Jackson, Last Day Closing Speech, Nuremberg).
But as Bernard Lewis also convincingly argues in “Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror”:
“Terrorism requires only a few. Obviously the West must defend itself by whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them.” (page xxxii)
That's one shrewd empirical wisdom I have never contended with Bernard Lewis on. And I apply it myself to understand the motivations of the superterrorists. And not just Zionists, but all hectoring hegemons. For truly, “in devising means to fight the [super]terrorists, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them.” However, it is not just the examination of motivational forces of history and philosophy, but also the dynamic contemporary prime-mover forces which empirically wield such an immense power that none can interfere with Zionistan in its genocide of the Palestinians, and yet themselves remain practically invisible to the victims.
Exactly like an invisible “Iron Wall”, which the victims simply cannot breach! These words of Jabotinsky have far more import than has been accorded them:
“This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.”
What is that “force independent of the local population”? Hitherto. almost all students of the “Iron Wall” have described it as the Jewish military power. I perceive that “Iron Wall” is referring to something far more fundamental than merely an effect. It can only be referring to a prime-mover. Only that empirically explains the inscrutable and indomitable power of Zionism. This understanding also enables looking for that prime-mover and to elevate the battle where it can actually have some efficacy. And this has been the power of the prime-mover – it's ability to stay hidden from the public eye and leave the people merely grappling with the effects!
When a people believe something, whatever may be the merits of the belief, and acquire the power to enact that belief, what is the primary enemy to address in order to effectively counter it: 1) the visible expression of that power; 2) the hidden motivations that drive that visible expression of power; 3) the hidden prime-movers who ab initio fabricate and harness that motivation into a political goal and orchestrates it with all their financial and political might through those errand boys we see in the visible expressions of power while they themselves remain hidden from public view?
I leave it for the reader to explore those simple questions for themselves. A reasoned determination of causality, the forensic distinction between cause and effect, and an understanding that people have deliberately been led to focus on the effects, then logically ought to define their next pursuits. I wager that following logic and rationalism, as opposed to religion, feel-goods, and other emotionalisms, the reader will come to the same logical conclusions as reached by this scribe. Either kill the golem with a thousand cuts, but that does require administering a thousand cuts and preventing each wound from coagulating, or, directly reach for its heavily protected heart and yank it out. All else is touchy-feely spiritualism.
Returning to focus on Zionism and the forces which drive it, initially, as a young man tremendously angered by the horrendous Zionist oppression of Palestinians, I didn't comprehend this motivational mindset. And over a period of three decades of earnest interlocution with Zionists of all shades, both friendly, and not so friendly, even including with my own teacher Noam Chomsky, I still haven't figured out how to address such ingrained zealotry borne of systematic indoctrination that commences from the time when they are in their mother's womb, with any measure of efficacy. Wait just a minute you might well ask at this point if you haven't been entirely dozing off, Noam Chomsky indoctrinated? Well, I am just giving him a non-criminal way out for his support of Zionism, because I can't see why would he otherwise, as a left-wing atheist, even be a self-proclaimed Zionist? He is not of Semitic Middle Eastern origin, and like his ancestors, he was not born in Palestine. In most likelihood, he is a Khazar in origin. Why would he even aspire to be an idealist Zionist of the “1940s'” variety, even if only seeking its expression in a “binational state”? There is simply no explanation for this irrationality coming from an uber-rational scholar who is even anointed “arguably the most important intellectual alive”.
To make the absurdity of this manifest, it is somewhat like my aspiring to be Semitic like the Arabs when I am from the Indian sub-continent, and arguing that the Arabs should gratuitously live with me in a binational state on their own land! Isn't that absurd? What makes Chomsky a Zionist aspiring for a binational state for himself in someone else's Semitic homeland? There is simply no rational basis for such an aspiration – except, either being a colonizer, or being indoctrinated since birth, and in either case arguing the legitimacy of power and the reality on the ground, instead of moral right, to back it up. The fact that this criminal absurdity of validating the legitimacy of force to create unjust rights which do not naturally belong to one, is not visible to a scholar like Chomsky, can only be attributed to the psychological cataracts due to indoctrination. I can't really believe that a teacher of morality otherwise, like the Golden Rule, and always demonstrating a repugnance for hypocrites time and again in public talks, can also be a hypocrite colonizer himself. To his credit, he did not live in Israel, and moved back to the United States after being there in the 1950s and recognizing the injustices that had been purveyed upon the indigenous peoples in order to create a homeland for the Jews. But having profoundly recognized that reality, why justify it as an act of “international” agreement among nations endorsed by the United Nations? Why not principally call for Israel's outright dismantling as an Apartheid state, for permitting the Palestinian refugees to return, for paying restitution and compensation in the same measure as the Jews are extracting for Nazi crimes?
See my essay which has already deconstructed the convoluted theologies of the so called “soft Zionists” who ostensibly support the Palestinians for an hypothetical severely emasculated “Palestinian state” carved out of their own vast indigenous homeland gratuitously gifted away to the Jews; who boldly speak-out against the Israeli aggression; who at times even longingly speak of an hypothetical binational state, which some progressive Zionists today also pitch as “onestate” without fully explaining the semantics of what they actually mean by it – and it invariably does not include Palestinian refugees returning home; but all the while making continuous fools of the victims with red herrings a plenty in the best mold of “beneficial cognitive diversity” to buy time until realities on the ground become impractical to reverse. Then, they glibly claim that the realities on the ground are impractical to reverse! The analysis can be read here and here. [17]
Recognizing such convolutions for what they are, is such a crucial and contemporary matter that it requires further elaboration. Professor Sholmo Sand is the new rage in the Palestinian town. Who hasn't heard of him or his book: The Invention of the Jewish People. He is a new hero among the Palestinians – well, among some at least, and like Professor Noam Chomsky before him, some excitedly carry him upon their head and shoulders just like they carry Professor Norm Finkelstein and many others. In fact, anyone from among the Jews who will sympathize with them becomes a new showcase for the Palestinians. Anna Baltzer is only the most recent example of that. Her leading performance with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on American television left much to be desired. It is deconstructed here. [18] The indiscriminate attachment to Jewish sympathizers of Palestinian plight and permitting them to become the leading spokespersons for the Palestinians has been great for ensuring that the Palestinian narrative before the Western public is also controlled by the Jews – even though they be most earnest in their show of sympathy. The “soft Zionists” on the “left” have largely set the boundaries, or the book-ends, for the discourse on resolving Israel-Palestine in the West. Only a colonized mind accepts the victimizers to be their liberators. This is also a rather murky area and it is not easy to always know where to draw the line. Or whether there should even be a line in an honest common struggle when one sees enormously courageous Jews of conscience laying down their own precious lives on a matter of principle, like those in the ISM bearing witness to crimes against humanity and being shot dead by the Israelis. But let's just stay with the imposing Jewish academic in this article.
Look what Professor Shlomo Sand says in the following interview – and incidentally, after reading this interview, I lost all interest in reading his book which doesn't contain anything new for me anyway beyond what was revealed in The Thirteenth Tribe: Khazar Jews – The revelation of another Jewish hoax, By Arthur Koestler, 1976. It can be read here. [19]
Shlomo Sand's statements in Ha'aretz, 21/03/2008, Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani, can be read here. [20]
Begin Excerpt
“My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period – what they wrote about conversion.”
“The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that preceded it,”
“I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land – a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”
[Interviewer]: If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?
“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'”
[Interviewer] Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?
“It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist.”
End Excerpt
If Professor Sand himself argues that there is no such thing as a Jewish people, and the Arab Palestinians are the original inhabitants of Palestine, then on what basis does he say the following:
Begin Excerpt
[Interviewer] Is there no justification for this fear?
“No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.” (emphasis added)
End Excerpt
It is common among this breed of scholarly Zionists – which is perhaps why they also remain light-years ahead of the Palestinians – to argue among themselves not just whether Palestinians are a people (as both Moshe Katsav, Israel's former President, and Raphael Eitan, former Chief of Staff of the IDF, have variously pondered; it can be read here [21]), but also whether even Jews are a people. It's even reported in the New York Times: Scholars Debate Roots of Yiddish, Migration of Jews, October 29, 1996, which can be read here. [22]
There is nothing new Professor Shlomo Sand has to offer Palestinians in the Zionist's endless cycle of their own myth-constructions and their own myth-destruction, except a new twisted justification for the invaders to continue to occupy Palestine, despite himself arguing that he does not have any roots there! But wait, he is not packing up to leave as a matter of conscience, as a matter of principle, after learning all that truth about the myths he had been fed. Now, it is the new mantra of “establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.”!
It's akin to a robber comes into my house, takes over on the pretext of an asinine justification that god gave this land to his ancestors and I am the illegal occupant of his house; me and my children spend all our lives trying to show that world that the robber is not only criminal taking over my house but also an expert liar; then, a few years later, the robbers' children and grandchildren create a different drama, some showcasing books variously showing a) that there is no god and “in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state”, and b) that even there is no Jewish people; but the current crop of legatees still want to stay in my house which he illegally occupied to start with?
Is that absurd? But not in Alice in Wonderland.
Surely the following reaction is not absurd. It is understandable psychologically: Now my beleaguered family members are overjoyed by that statement of the robber, who is thus far forcibly living in my house, that yaaay, we can all finally live together in the house in relief because now we will have the same rights to go to our own bathrooms and roam inside our own entire house without having to first beg permission from the invaders occupying my house!
Yes, I can well imagine my children saying that to me excitedly, but in hushed whispers if I was in that position and Shlomo Sand's proposal was about to become a political reality. Then, the reconciliation would become the new mantra to legitimize the conquest. And I can also well imagine just being grateful for that bit of relief – that, I will now, finally, be able to roam in my own house without checkpoints and a suffocating wall, even if I might be still stuck with the invader and his oppressive alien culture and civilization, his hijacking of my culture, and his decimation of my previous history, culture, civilization, records, libraries, books, artifacts, and most of all, my ancestors and some of my children.
Apart from the fact that this strategy of temporary relief after enormous stress being the obvious Jabotinsky's “Iron Wall” method of getting the victims to acquiesce to their predicament when they have no other choice, and then the “compromise” even comes as a relief to them, the reconciliation will also be only as advantageous for the Palestinians as it has been for the Blacks in South Africa. They can vote and travel anywhere they want, while still living in their slums, and that's a good enough start – better than staring down the gun-turrets 24x7, not to mention being daily showered in Shoah. And in that reconciliation, there will be, practicably, no Right of Return. Take careful note of it – any compensations will be with only funny-accounting and funny-money. The Palestinians in Diaspora will remain holding the keys to their homes forever, outside Israel in this new Israeli open society. That's what I suspect Shlomo Sands means by his “establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens”. He could also have straightforwardly stated that in his new open Israeli society, all displaced Palestinians would be permitted to return home, and all victims of Zionism would be compensated by the same measure as the Jews have sought from the Nazis! And the Diasporans celebrate his book? Absurd!
I am making only an argument here of sensibly what's morally right and what's morally Just. I am not arguing what a Palestinian ought to settle for to make peace at any price. They will first and foremost, be sold out by their own House Negro leadership, perhaps under the sound of the white man's trumpets and Hallelujah-Arabic songs singing during Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies. In that latter space, of resignation to fate and gratefully receiving whatever charity the oppressor hands them out of the generosity of its cold-blooded calculating heart, the victims are suffering from their own natural victimhood. To understand that side of the picture, of the victims echoing their victimizers' message in long-running traumas of mental colonization, I refer the reader to the writings and speeches of MLK and Malcolm X. It can also be gleaned in the FAQ here. [23] My letter to documentary-maker Wendy Campbell highlights the most recent aspect of it, the case of Dr. Mustafa Barghouti basking in the glory as the 2010 Nobel Peace nominee. This chap shows not an ounce of dignity and self-respect in adopting the language of Zionism and happily receiving the victimizer's applause – and yet, he too is a victimized Palestinian who has bravely suffered the Israeli occupation. Putting such co-opted learned peoples in-charge of the Palestinian leadership is part and parcel of the colonization process. The letter can be read here. [24]
This article is not about the cracks and lacunae among the beleaguered victims and their lack of wherewithal in dealing with an infinitely more sophisticated enemy who appears to be light-years ahead of them in Machiavelli, all of which has been addressed elsewhere.
This article is entirely about understanding the forces behind the oppressors, cued off from the comment of a Zionist robot, to find a way forward through the maze of Zionist robots of different types, shapes, and lethality that are sent by the prime-mover forces to implement the colonization process by means so deceptive, that it can only be accurately described in the diction of their own intelligence motto: Waging war by way of Deception!
Conversations with indoctrinated robots of all types, Evangelical Christians, to Zionists, to also Muslims, even atheists, once upon a time as an energetic young student, used to consume enormous amounts of my time. I could never quite comprehend the inability of “others” to see what's right in front of their nose. Until I realized that indoctrination and socialization into a world view is part of the general human condition and plagues people quite democratically. It creates the “psychological cataracts” (borrowing MLK's terminology) which cannot be seen by the afflicted if they think there is no problems with their sight!
Therefore, I no longer indulge in such futility of dialog when it's obvious that the conversation is merely a power-play and not a genuine quest for knowledge or discovering truth. Indoctrination cannot be argued nor debated with. In point of fact, in political Machiavelli, such interlocutions become a clever tactic for keeping the Goy busy in idle pursuits, sort of the “bread and circuses” equivalent for those among the Goyem who like to think. It is used to defocus attention of the genuine truth-seekers; the real moral activists who seek to learn; who discuss not to orchestrate an a priori agenda, but to know for themselves and by knowing, to affect the cause of justice and fairness. And that's why “cognitive infiltration” is used to distract the real truth-seekers. That's what “beneficial cognitive diversity” is for, and it permeates the Israel-Palestine discourses in the West. The word “beneficial” is in the language of Zionism, like “American Peace”. See for instance, its exposition in President Obama's Information Czar, Harvard's Cass Sunstein's 2008 paper on “Conspiracy Theories”. The official dictionary for the Language of Zionism, titled: Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, is here. [25]
Nowadays when faced with indoctrinated zombies, which is most of the time, I pertinently point to what their own ilk have written in counterpoint, and remain silent. Let all indoctrinated peoples play with each other and with themselves in the cesspool of their own endless academic theses, which in this instance of Palestine, is whether the Palestinian peoples are an invention or not, whether they are even human or not, and whether they are actually from another planet or not.
Palestinians do not have to partake in the immanent orgies of imbeciles being used as foot soldiers and canon fodder by their elite. Their battle for survival is not with the robotic indoctrinated foot soldiers of Zionism, but with its prime-movers – the common financiers of all hectoring hegemons who are primarily responsible for translating political philosophies from the realm of immanence, tortuous or not, into the realm of empiricism. Those first-cause enablers of translation from theory into practice are thus culpable before any of their indoctrinated foot-soldiers can be held culpable.
Thus while one must understand the motivation which drive these robots of Zionism, to counter them effectively, one must counter their prime-movers! That is the only way. And so long as the prime-movers remain hidden, how can they ever be countered? The role of the House of Rothschild in fabricating Zionism, and also being the prime-mover force behind one-world government, is introduced here, here, and here. [26]
Interestingly, that rule of ascribing culpability is also the message of Islam to create amity among mankind that is despoiled by the corrupt and the war-mongers among us who set the entire society ablaze with their matches and fuel. It is also the basis of an enduring inner-peace for the Palestinians – they will not suffer from the psychological scars past their suffering-generations like the Jews have endured the baggage of 2000-3000 years. Islam is a very spiritually-cleansing force as both a psychology, and a philosophy. And I do believe so is Christianity, minus the mumbo-jumbo of its church's officialdom. And through both of them, the Jews can reclaim their own lofty teachings of the real Prophet Moses – the universal Ten Commandments which is a proper subset of both the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of Islam. As Edward Said had stated in the The Mirage of Peace:
“Palestine/Israel is no ordinary bit of geography; it is more saturated in religious, historical and cultural significance than any place on earth. It is also now the place where two peoples, whether they like it or not, live together tied by history, war, daily contact and suffering. To speak only in geopolitical clichés (as the Clinton Administration does) or to speak about "separating" them (as Rabin does) is to call forth more violence and degradation. These two communities must be seen as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from such a beginning can justice then proceed.” (Edward Said, The Nation, October 16, 1995)
Was Edward Said kidding that: “These two communities must be seen as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from such a beginning can justice then proceed”? Am I kidding when I suggest that all the fundamental seeds for sowing such a fair Justice already exist among the peoples?
Let me just show it from the religion of Islam's teachings to imagine what can transpire in the presently aggrieved Arab-Muslim ethos within the passage of a single generation or less if the calamity that has befallen us is lifted with actual fairness and equity, and not merely in the Language of Zionism:
“It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses); therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophet who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. (44)

We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) wrong-doers. (45)

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (46)

Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (47)

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety; so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute. (48)”
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Maeda 5:44-48)
The above verses also unequivocally prove that: a) there is no “clash of civilizations” in Islam; b) Islam is not Triumphalist even as it is Universalist. This is analyzed here. [27] Returning back to the hard realities of the present but with an acute eye to the future direction, we do have a rational way forward to defang the snake of Zionism and its prime-mover harbingers. It is the calculated division of labor. A division which unfortunately has not transpired as yet.
While it is obviously necessary to withstand the incessant onslaught of the aggressive foot-soldiers of the hectoring hegemons by the straightforward existential demands of daily survival – whether they come wielding their mighty guns and their soulless Drones and F-16s to exterminate us; or they come wielding their favorite everyday signatured torpedo, their Hasbara, i.e., their phenomenal endless argumentative skills of introducing “beneficial cognitive diversity” in endless narratives to exterminate the moral commonsense of the world's public that as much as it grieves the Zionists to inform the spectating world, Palestinians really do deserve to extinguish themselves from the Land of the Jews without the slightest hint of protest as the moral right belong to the Jews – some still have to concentrate on the prime-movers who are behind this robotic machine of the Jewish Lebensraum.
In order to be effective in dealing with such a multifaceted and unique adversary, a division of labor between those compelled to face the live ammunitions and checkpoints on Ground Zero, and those in Diaspora living in the comforts of the West with the luxury of time and liberty to effectively focus on the prime-movers, is the rational demand of the hour.
Furthermore, by reframing the struggle for Palestine, from the struggle against the European Jewry's quest for Lebensraum on Arab soil for its Roman Jerusalem, to the struggle against the common enemy, the hectoring hegemon seeking one-world government, the Palestinians can harness the entire world's 'untermenschen' struggles against the primal global enemy of mankind.
Unless that reframing is done quickly, beginning in the intellectual space and rapidly moving into the courts and public relations space as a prelude to the political space, the struggle for Palestine will remain boxed within the unbreachable invisible “Iron Wall” until acquisition of the entire Promised Land of Eretz Yisrael depicted in Herzl's plan for the Jewish State is completed. [28] It isn't obvious to me however, that when motivational Zionism required an indomitable prime-mover force to transform it from an idea into empirical Zionism, that without an equivalent prime-mover force on the side of the Palestinians, how can such a reframing practicably ever transpire? Serendipitously though, this very realization that without a backing prime-mover force it is next to impossible to wage an effective global struggle, also reinforces the idea that Zionism too could not have possibly flourished without it, and that the only way to dismantle Zionism is to effectively disable its prime-mover. Zionism would have remained moribund in the immanent spaces of the mind without the owners of central banks driving it!
thepromisedland Eretz Yisrael
(Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael)
With all the preceding as the backdrop highlighting the realpolitik challenges to the way forward, let's return to the robot “Ahmad Yaqeen” so that we can keep it busy playing with itself while thinking peoples can get focussed on figuring out the challenges of elevating the struggle directly up to the prime-movers who created the robots. First, on the issue of indoctrination, that many a Zionist is indeed a robot programmed at birth, by their own admission:
“The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba – the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people – were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust.” (Tanya Reinhart: “Israel/Palestine – How to End the War of 1948”)
As for the robot's other question of Why did Arabs reject the proposed UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, here is what Avi Shlaim says in the Prologue of his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.
Begin Excerpt:
The struggle for statehood was accompanied by many disagreements, but these were more about tactics than about the long-term goal. Ben-Gurion's own commitment to statehood did no waver in the face of the Arab opposition or British prevarications. Having taken the initiative in proposing partition in 1937, the British government began to retreat from partition with the approach of World War II. The support of the Arab states and the Muslim world generally was much more crucial for Britain in the conflict with the Axis powers than the support of the Jews. A white paper of 17 May 1939 abruptly reversed British support for Zionism and for a Jewish state. It condemned the Jews to a status of permanent minority in a future independent Palestinian state. So the Zionist movement was driven to develop its own military power, through the paramilitary organization called Haganah (which in Hebrew means defense), in order to combat Arab resistance. Having subscribed to a defensive ethos that had served it so well on the public relations front, it adopted a policy based on force in order to counter the use and the threat of force by its Arab opponents. The offensive ethos that had always been embedded in the defensive ethos had in any case become more prominent following the outbreak of the Arab Revolt.
At the same time that Yishuv mounted its own active resistance to the policy of the white paper that restricted Jewish land purchase and Jewish immigration to Palestine. The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 placed the Yishuv in an acute dilemma: it was behind Britain in the struggle against Nazi Germany but at loggerheads with Britain in the struggle for Palestine. A way out of the dilemma was found, however, succinctly summed up in Ben-Gurion's slogan: “We will fight with the British against Hitler as if there were no white paper; we will fight the white paper as if there were no war.”
During the war Ben-Gurion became ever more assertive about the Jewish right to political sovereignty, while denying this right to the Arab majority in Palestine. His solution to the Yishuv's demographic problem involved the migration to Palestine of two to three million Jews immediately following the end of the war. The Arab problem, he claimed, paled in significance compared with the Jewish problem because the Arabs had vast spaces outside Palestine, whereas for the Jews, who were being persecuted in Europe, Palestine constituted the only possible haven. He thus came to treat the Arab problem as merely one of status for the Arab minority within a state with a large Jewish majority.
The new concept of a Jewish state over the whole of Palestine found expression in the so-called Biltmore Program. At an extraordinary meeting of the American Zionists, attended by both Weizmann and Ben-Gurion, in the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942, a resolution was adopted urging “that Palestine be constituted as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world” after World War II. With this resolution the Zionist movement for the first time openly staked a claim to the whole of mandatory Palestine. The goal of a Jewish Arab agreement was not abandoned, but it was now clearly expected to follow rather than to precede the establishment of a Jewish state or commonwealth.
The Biltmore Program was adopted before the full scale and the horror of the Nazi campaign for the extermination of European Jewry became known. Zionist leaders assumed that at the end of the war there would be millions of Jewish refugees in Europe whose plight would strengthen the case for a large Jewish state in Palestine. None of them foresaw the Holocaust, the most calamitous event in the annals of Jewish history, in which six million Jews would perish. In the end, however, the tragedy of European Jewry became the source of strength for Zionism. The moral case for a home for the Jewish people in Palestine was widely accepted from the beginning; after the Holocaust it became unassailable. The poet Robert Frost defined a home as the place where, if you have to go there, they have to let you in. Few people disputed the right of the Jew to a home after the trauma to which they had been subjected in Central Europe.
A much tougher kind of Zionism was forged in the course of World War II, and the commitment to Jewish statehood became deeper and more desperate in the shadow of the Holocaust. On the one hand, the Holocaust confirmed the conviction of the Zionists that they had justice on their side in the struggle for Palestine; on the other, it converted international public opinion to the idea of an independent Jewish state.
Ben-Gurion embodied the “fighting Zionism” that rose out of the ashes of World War II, and he wrested the leadership from the hands of Weizmann, who still adhered to “diplomatic Zionism” and to the alliance with Britain. Against Weizmann's advice the Zionist conference of August 1945 decided on a policy of active opposition to British rule, and in October an armed uprising was launched. The Haganah was instructed to cooperate with the dissident groups spawned by the Revisionist movement. The main group was the National Military Organization (the Irgun), which began to direct its operations against the British administration in Palestine after the publication of the white paper in 1939. Later that year, when the Irgun called off its campaign against the British, a split took place. The more militant wing, led by Avraham Stern, seceded from the Irgun to form Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), better known as Lehi, after its Hebrew acronym, or the Stern Gang. The Stern Gang was so hostile to the British that it sought to contact with the Axis powers in order to drive the British out of Palestine. Although its members never exceeded three hundred, the Stern Gang was a considerable thorn in the flesh of the British. Between November 1945 and July 1946, the three underground organizations joined arms in what became known as “the movement of the Hebrew revolt.”
A massive British military crackdown forced the Zionist leaders to call off the Hebrew revolt, and they instead tried to drive a wedge between Britain and the United States on the diplomatic front. Britain sought American support for its plan for self-governing Jewish and Arab cantons, a plan categorically rejected by the Zionists. To get America on their side, members of the Jewish Agency Executive decided in August 1946 to agree to consider the establishment of a Jewish state on an adequate part of Palestine. This decision signified the abandonment of the Biltmore Program and a return to the principle of partition. The decision was viewed not as a concession to the Arabs but as a mean of gaining American support for the idea of a Jewish state. In February 1947 the British government, unable to come up with a solution on which both sides could agree, referred the Palestine problem to the United Nations.
On 29 November 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed its historic Resolution 181 in favor of the partition of Palestine. In a rare instance of agreement during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union voted for the resolution while Britain abstained. The resolution laid down a timetable for the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state linked by economic union, and an international regime for Jerusalem. Exceptionally long and winding borders separated the Jewish state from the Arab one, with vulnerable crossing points to link its isolated areas in the eastern Galilee, the coastal plain, and the Negev. The borders of these two oddly shaped states, resembling two fighting serpents, were a strategic nightmare (see map 3). No less anomalous and scarcely more visible was the demographic structure of the proposed Jewish state, consisting as it did of roughly 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs.
Despite all its limitations and anomalies, the UN resolution represented a major triumph for Zionist diplomacy. While failing far short of the full-blown Zionist aspiration for a state comprising the whole of Palestine and Jerusalem, it provided an invaluable charter of international legitimacy for the creation of an independent Jewish state. News of the UN vote was greeted by Jews everywhere with jubilation and rejoicing. But the followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the Irgun and the Stern Gang did not join in the general celebrations. A day after the UN vote, Menachem Begin, the commander of Irgun, proclaimed the credo of the underground fighters: “The partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized. ... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.”
The Jewish Agency officially accepted the UN partition plan, but most of its leaders did so with a heavy heart. They did not like the idea of an independent Palestinian state, they were disappointed with the exclusion of Jerusalem, and they had grave doubts about the viability of the Jewish state within the UN borders. Nevertheless, the UN resolution represented a tremendous gain of international support for the establishment of a Jewish state – hence their decision to go along with it.
The Palestine Arabs, who unlike the Jews had done very little to prepare themselves for statehood, rejected the UN partition plan out of hand. The Arab Higher Committee, which represented them, denounced the plan as “absurd, impracticable, and unjust.” The Arab states, loosely organized since 1945 in the Arab League, also claimed that the UN plan was illegal and threatened to resist its implementation by force. On 1 December the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, which was accompanied by violent attacks on the Jewish civilians. The UN vote in favor of partition thus provided not just international legitimacy for creating Jewish and Arab states but, unintentionally, the signal for a savage for between the two communities in Palestine. (Avi Shlaim The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, pages 22-27)
End Excerpt
Further elaboration upon that exposition of Avi Shlaim, with copious references in the Zionists' own eloquence, is here. [29]
Begin Excerpt: (typos are in the original)
As it will be demonstrated below, the decision by the Zionist leadership to accept the 1947 proposed UN GA Partition plan was nothing but a smoke screen, which was done solely to gain international recognition and support. This deception was a political ploy to gain initial international legitimacy for the existence of the "Jewish state", and this was well known to the Palestinian people. The reader is urged to contemplate the following Zionist leaders' quotes in an open mind. Note that most, if not all, of the quotes below are dated before the entry of any single Arab Army into British Mandated Palestine:
* In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he stated:
"We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)
* Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:
"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138)
* In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the "Jewish state" on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote:
"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403)
* One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel's future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed:
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." (Iron Wall p. 25)
* Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to partition Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost" almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60% Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated on November 30, 1947:
"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)
* While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion stated:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)
* Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:
"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66). Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.
* Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department who later became Israel's first foreign minister, declared:
"[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be [population] transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)
* While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30th, 1947, Ben-Gurion said:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%."(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)
* On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor" with the following:
"The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Benny Morris, p. 170 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180)
* And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:
"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)
* In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:
"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)
Note the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. Click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA partition plan.
End Excerpt

[5] Brian Gerrish, 2009 Lawful Rebellion Conference, UK,
“... people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.” (Moshe Katsav)
“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” and “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” (Raphael Eitan)
Ring Of Power THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate) part 2
Also see: Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, where he lists (pgs. 258-259) the names of both the House of Rothschild (Nathan Rothschild, Baron Rothschild) and Arthur James Balfour as being in the “The Society of the Elect” of the Cecil Rhodes' funded Milner Group, aka The Round Table. It was merely an in-house exchange of quid pro quo among the peers of a secret group who want to rule the world as disclosed in Rhodes' will, that led to the infamous Balfour Declaration granting Palestine to the Jews being in the House of Rothschild's name in exchange for the Jews getting the United States to join World War I on the side of England. Download PDF Carroll Quigley:
See the detailed deconstruction of the Balfour Declaration by this scribe in :
See Antony C. Sutton's AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT, that connects the common goals of the secret Anglophile group in the United States and England for one-world government. Download Antony Sutton PDF:
See this scribe's report on the Invisible Power of the House of Rothschild that none dare take the Rothschild name as being among the handful of invisible prime-mover's behind the larger than life history's actors:
See how even Carroll Quigley craftily managed to keep the name of Rothschild out of his follow-on book to The Anglo-American Establishment despite openly proclaiming the role of the House of Rothschild in Cecil Rhodes' plan for world domination, titled Tragedy and Hope, in which he subsequently detailed the hidden hand of financial capitalism being the prime-mover for one-world government under the rule of private bankers:
See Eustace Mullins, The World Order, A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism, in which he forthrightly connected the dots and did not spare the Rothschild name. Download Mullins PDF:
[28] The Promised Land Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael
Image source: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, Translated and edited by Israel Shahak
[29] Why did Arabs reject the proposed UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states?
British 1937 Peel Commission Partition Plan, rejected by the 20th Zionist Congress which convened in Zurich in August 1937

Article III
From Genocide to ReGenesis in ZERO Compromise

Preamble to Palestine: The Struggle Forward

From Eretz Yisrael to Palestine – Just One Goal in the 62nd Year of Al-Nakba:
Not Onestate; One Palestine

Zahir Ebrahim
May 15, 2010

This article is the Preamble to my paper Palestine: The Struggle Forward, which can be read here [1]. That paper looked at the battle of two fundamentalisms, between indoctrination borne of self-interests on the one hand, and the sense of fairness and justice among those in mankind who share a common moral compass regardless of their race, caste, color, or creed, on the other. A moral compass which is straightforwardly based on the Biblical Golden Rule “Do unto others as you have others do unto you”, and is one which is innately recognized by all ordinary sentient humanity as the touchstone of moral commonsense. It is the primal differentiator which separates us from animals without their capacity for abstract thought. Even the most heinous of criminals among mankind, do not fail to recognize the applicability of this Golden Rule to their ownselves in their godfather's quest for primacy. Their exercise of hegemony is not based on not having the moral commonsense, but rather, despite knowing it all too well, being flushed with the unassailable hubris natural to the distemper of absolute power, getting away with it – as demonstrated in this famous proclamation of Adolf Hitler, reported by William Shirer, the American war correspondent in Berlin, in his diary on the eve of World War II:
“Hitler knew the answer well. Had he not the week before on his Bavarian mountaintop promised the generals that he would 'give a propagandist reason for starting the war' and admonished them not to 'mind whether it was plausible or not'? 'The victor', he had told them, 'will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not the right that matters, but victory.'”
The Struggle Forward argues that the only rational way to carry the struggle for Palestine forward is in a strategic division of labor. Those on ground zero having no choice in the matter, to continue-on with waging that battle of their lives by the existential necessity of survival against the incessant onslaughts of the indoctrinated political robots and trigger-pulling foot-soldiers of Zionism exercising their fanatical jihad for Jewish Lebensraum. Those in the Diaspora having all the choice and freedom of action in the comforts of the West, rather than waste their time bemoaning Al Nakba every year, to instead, go straight for the jugular of the real prime-movers behind that Zionist quest for Lebensraum. That, their to-date 62 years of ineffective struggle can only acquire potency, some measure of efficacy, if the Palestinians shrewdly recognized that the Israel Project is intimately tied to the globalists' agenda for the primacy of a “Zion that will light up all the world” in a one-world government. And they harnessed that brazen fact to reframe their struggle as the common global struggle of mankind directed principally against not the errand boys in Zionistan, but against the common global enemy of all mankind, the prime-movers.
This article, From Genocide to ReGenesis in ZERO Compromise, penetrates deeper into the psychology, and the limitations, to The Way Forward. It is not that the aforementioned approach is a very profound discovery, or is classified top secret and I just accidentally stumbled upon it. It has been as open as any butcher's knife in front of sheep. Yet, the sheep have never been able to revolt against the habit of the butcher to provide mutton to its paying-patrons. It obviously is incapable of thought. But we are human beings. What prevents us? What ab initio creates sheeples among mankind so democratically, that perfectly reasonable people, quite capable of thought, equally fall prey to the limitations of their respective world-views, follow pied-pipers, instead of doing their own independent thinking? Apart from the real fear that being labeled a rebel may now be deemed a terrorist, or at least a mental disorder in psychiatry, that is? [2]
As reported in the Washington Post, if “there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk”, most assuredly there will be legal entitlement to be a non-conformist, i.e., an independent thinker:
'Today's DSM defines "oppositional defiant disorder" as a pattern of "negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures." Symptoms include "often loses temper," "often deliberately annoys people" or "is often touchy." DSM omits this symptom: "is a teenager."
This DSM defines as "personality disorders" attributes that once were considered character flaws. "Antisocial personality disorder" is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . . the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal." "Histrionic personality disorder" is "excessive emotionality and attention-seeking." "Narcissistic personality disorder" involves "grandiosity, need for admiration . . . boastful and pretentious." And so on.
If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder" akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; "mental impairments" include "emotional or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk. (See above, "antisocial personality disorder.")' -- George F. Will, The Washington Post, February 28, 2010, Handbook suggests that deviations from 'normality' are disorders
Well, we already know that Orwellian conformance and Orwellian re-semantification of language is on-going, as also examined in Joseph Massad's Al-Ahram Weekly article 'The Language of Zionism' here, and in this scribe's response to The Israel Lobby's Global Propaganda Manual here. [3] The aforementioned diabolics to label non-conformists as suffering from “disorders” is merely the next phase of it. Soon, all un-favorableness towards Zion, just like all critical questioning of Holocaust already is in many parts of the world, might be illegal, or as the above portends, be deemed a mental illness. In either case, a good reason to be enjoying state hospitality, perhaps even in Room 101. [4]
Let's begin by looking at the maps of Palestine and the end result of 62 years of compromises while peering down the triple-barrel gun of Zionism: massive money, massive power, and continuous massive control of imperial superpowers. The effect of this triple-barrel gun of Zionism is empirically depicted in the following maps of ground realities:

Maps of 62 Years of Al Nakba, of deal making, peace processes, and Nobel Peace prizes

(The latest Palestinian Uncle Tom for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Dr. Mustafa Barghouti
see prediction here, its confirmation here, antidote here [5])
Map UN Partition plan 1947map-of-occupation-palestinian-lands-1946-2008-pttthepromisedland Eretz Yisrael
(Map of Herzl's plan for the Jewish State: Eretz Yisrael)
Click on this navigable map of One Palestine, courtesy of
Click on Map to Enlarge: Plands Palestine_map_1948_eng
I commence this exploration by framing the question forensically: today as a Muslim in the world, I am a reviled entity in the West. I bear the brunt of the same anti-Semitic fulminations from the pulpits, thrones, and pedestals of “our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both” – in the potent words of the mighty Zionist Svengali, the “leading Western scholar of Islam”, Bernard Lewis – as the Jews absorbed for two millennia in Christendom up to as late as 62 years ago, the day of Al Nakba. But look at my dire predicament: I can't get in to see anyone in power to plead to them to give me back my Palestine, and my Iraq, and to stop the military and covert assaults on my Pakistan, and on my Iran, and to stop inducing the “birth-pangs of a New Middle East”.
How could the Jews have done it: got the imperial powers to grant them the Balfour Declaration from a severely weakened imperial power upon whom the sun had never set at the end of World War I after it had simultaneously defeated two other rival powers in Europe, the German Weimar Republic which was the legatee of the mighty Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire which was the legatee of over 13 centuries of Muslim empires; followed by the bipartisan vote from the two most Cold Warring factions at the end of World War II, the United States and the USSR, in the United Nations; unless the Jews had already acquired the triple-barrel gun of Zionism? Who acquired it and wielded it on behalf of Zionism? After every major World War, Zionistan came a step closer to realization. Who participated in the peace talks at the end of each world war which gave Zionistan its piece meal recognition? Who created the entity of the United Nations to create legal sanction by an arbitrary supra-national global authority pushed by the victors of World War II, and whose very first acts were to sanction partitions, specifically of Palestine and Pakistan? After World War III, the Global Cold War of yesteryear, the Zionist state even emerged as the top three among the world's superpowers. How could that have possibly happened? And after World War IV, this Global War on Terror inferno that we, the generation Caught Between Two Ages, are being privileged to live through without any significant comprehension of the forces which drive it, will surely culminate in the “Zion that will light up all the world.”
As a practicing engineer – used to examining complex systems in order to build them – turned social scientist, puzzled by this bizarre empiricism of the slaughter of the goy in massive numbers and the systematic destruction of their power-base, with the Jews successively coming out on top after each slaughter-cycle in such a short span, I decided to probe deeper. This paper is the result of my progressively refined research into this question since that very day of infamy, September 11, 2001. Since the day when I had decided to dump all a priori pre-suppositions, and all pied-pipers, and had curled up with William Shirer's Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, and Hitler's Mein Kampf, to attempt to comprehend the Nazi's self-inflicted Operation Canned Goods as a pretext for their war of German Lebensraum. I have, by now, studied countless historical narratives to understand current affairs and empirical matters always cloaked in deception. My comprehension today is layered upon facts uncovered by many a rational, un-afraid detective who has tread this path before me.
But it is not mere facts which create perspectives. Although, no doubt, facts must be built upon in order to be empirical in one's analysis. In an age when “deception is the state of mind and the mind of state” (James Jesus Ingleton, former Director of counter intelligence in the CIA during whose watch all the momentous political assassinations of 1960s transpired); when power decides what is fact and what is recorded as fact in its primary documentation and the popular Press, which are subsequently used by others down the chain of narrators echoing what was by fiat deemed to be fact, as absolute fact, without being cognizant of that very fact of fiat; when the enactment of puppetshows is construed as displaying “facts”, and recorded as such by historians; facts by themselves are meaningless in such a landscape when “waging war by way of deception” upon the public is the norm rather than the exception.
So, for instance, is it a fact that '19 Muslim Jihadis' rammed hijacked airplanes into two tall buildings bringing both of them down into their own footprint (watch wtc1, wtc2), bringing a third tall building down into its own footprint a few hours later without even hitting it (watch wtc7)? [6] In this example, the scientific observation that three very tall buildings comprising millions of tons of steel exploded into powder and/or collapsed into their own footprint at near free-fall speed, is an unarguable empirical fact. And the only fact. The rest, who dunnit, how it was done, and why it was done, as officially recorded in the current affairs books and the Press, are assertions by the fiat of power using its control of the narrative, i.e., the Mighty Wurlitzer, as examined here. [7] The official narratives of today are the absolute facts of the historians of tomorrow with no minority report on the official record. Popular dissenting voices of course are 'conspiracy theories', examined here, [8] shortly to be medically diagnosed as victims of delusions suffering from mental illnesses for which medical and legal groundwork is now being laid.
As George Orwell shrewdly but accurately observed in the opening of his seminal prognostications in “1984”:
“Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past”
Therefore, empirically, control of the narrative of history, as of current affairs, has been the imperative of all empires. It is a tool as old as hegemony, as old as mankind. Only fools, and imperial scholars in the service of empire, regardless of their garb, ignore it.
Ergo, it follows that the purported facts of history, as well as of current affairs, have to be treated as being more akin to clues, at times false clues and red herrings as in a crime scene, rather than as statements of facts. Therefore, the most rational model for understanding history and its linkages to current affairs, is the forensic one. Like the forensic eye of a crime detective, such as Agatha Christie's famous character Hercule Poirot, pondering upon the interconnections of clues, statements of purported eyewitnesses, drawing deductions, making logical inferences, and using new methods for uncovering unknown clues not visible to the naked eye in the visible light spectrum, such as employing ultraviolet and infrared regions of the spectrum to see what the naked eye can't perceive – all part and parcel of the forensics employed for apprehending a convoluted crime, solving a puzzle.
Thus, studying history and current affairs is like studying a crime scene or solving a puzzle. Its path is almost like the weaving of the many horizontal and vertical threads on a loom to fashion a carpet, or knit a Jacquard. That fashions a perspective from the underlying clues borne of empiricism. Weaving many perspectives from the same empirical elements, just like weaving many carpets from the same colored threads, is possible. And just like some detectives are plain wrong, and one right in identifying the real criminal, the same challenges beset the study of history. To find that right one master criminal, or the right perspective which explains the engagement of power and its narrative, surrounded tous azimuth by an endless trail of false clues, patsies taking the fall, and lies turned into sacred truths.
To the extent that a perspective is empirical, cohesive, is able to coherently resolve the riddles of power and its infestations of the mind, it cannot be refuted by mere assertions, threats, and calumny. It can stand in a court of law on its own merit, provided of course, it isn't a kangaroo court administering the sovereign's justice, a Military Tribunal administering the victor's justice, or a tournament of justice run by the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland. The definition of a crime, is always the fiat of sovereigns, such as one day a terrorist, the next day a Noble Peace Prize winner (like Israel's late prime minister Menachem Begin). As even argued by Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1951:
“Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrases, a standard has meaning only when associated with the considerations which give birth to nomenclature. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative.” (Cited in Palestine: The Struggle Forward, op. cit.)
Still, the vestiges of the “semantic strait-jacket” have left a few crucial loop holes in modernity. Before they all disappear altogether from the uber-moral landscape of secular humanism, one can harness the same cracks and lacunae used by power to oppress the world to its diktats: legalism. Afterwards, of course, when there is no recourse left from absolute tyranny, it is always either perpetual slavery, or perpetual revolt and warfare, for no peace processes can ever lead to freeing sheep from the hectoring hegemons' habit of mutton eating!
One such legal crack still existent in the dusty old law books, is, interestingly, this definition of “conspiracy”:
“In law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act. At common law, the crime of conspiracy was committed with the making of the agreement, but present-day statutes require an overt step by a conspirator to further the conspiracy. Other controversial aspects of conspiracy laws include the modification of the rules of evidence and the potential for a dragnet. A statement of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all conspirators, even if the statement includes damaging references to another conspirator, and often even if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence. The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise. It is a federal crime to conspire to commit any activity prohibited by federal statute, whether or not Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself.” (Columbia Encyclopedia, quoted in: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy! Are you among them? here [9])
My contribution to creating the forensic perspective on current affairs cannot be deemed very original, because, in the light of clear knowledge and forming the clear picture of the elephant shitting-trumpeting in broad daylight, it is only unveiling what is already in broad daylight. The blind of course can't ever see, daylight or not being moot. What can the blind ever perceive of an elephant, by feeling its deadly stomp upon them? Only something very large, and very heavy.
I do not intend to bring sight to the blind – not a Jesus, nor a miracle worker am I. I intend however, to lay the seeds to effectively counter this grotesque elephant using its own primary tool – political science, which it wields through its triple-barrel gun. To germinate, to cultivate, and to harvest, however is no more one man's job than executing on the Zionist's plan has been a one-man job. Using the same political science being used against us, we must fashion our own antidote to their triple-barrel gun. That fashioning does not require the majority of the public to be sighted, nor for them to believe what I believe, as Morpheus gallantly put it to the Council in the underground “Zion” in the Hollywood production: Matrix, the Revolution.
This paper is addressed to the tiny minority of thinking and morally-motivated peoples on planet earth, who still harbor the moral commonsense of The Golden Rule as a categorical imperative, who do not hold themselves to be uber alles, but who, almost all of them with only few notable exceptions, are inadvertently being led by their own emotionalism, by glamorous fools and false-leaders among them, and who have become the victims of their own myopic world-view which they haven't put to the forensic test of empiricism.
Thinking is a difficult business. Even those who can think, are often either too lazy to indulge in its luxury of actually exercising their grey-matter, often imagining that some other prominent stalwart with “scholar” stamped on his or her forehead has done due diligence on the matter on their behalf, or, are plagued by the following truism:
“Man is naturally competitive, acquisitive, and, in a greater or less degree, pugnacious. When the Press tells him that so-and-so is his enemy, a whole set of instincts in him responds to the suggestion. It is natural to most men to suppose that they have enemies and to find a certain fulfillment of their nature when they embark upon a contest. What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or worldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times even when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way, and much of what is currently believed in international affairs is no better then myth.” (Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 1919, page 147, '[or worldview]' this scribe's reflections)
The construction of these myths and false beliefs in international affairs, as further explained by Philip D. Zelikow in the 1997-98 report of the “Terrorism Study Group” which accurately predicted the chain reaction of reaction-response cycle to any ‘Catastrophic Terrorism’, is predicated entirely upon the 'Public Assumptions' which Shape Views of History:
“Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community. The sources for such presumptions are both personal (from direct experience) and vicarious (from books, movies, and myths).” (Cited in: A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer, op. cit.)
This tremendous insight into the mind of man was also not lost on Adolf Hitler. In Mein Kampf, Hitler accurately recognized it:
“Journalistic circles in particular like to describe the press as a 'great power' in the state. As a matter of fact, its importance really is immense. It cannot be overestimated, for the press really continues education in adulthood. Its readers, by and large, can be divided into three groups:
First, into those who believe everything they read; second, into those who have ceased to believe anything; third, into the minds which critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.
Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most in general degrees of intelligence.
To it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white. To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption that the someone else has exerted himself considerably.
Now, with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence of the press will be enormous.
They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others. ...
Today, when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or credulous.” (Mein Kampf, pages 240-242)
Hitler credited the Anglophiles for their propaganda lessons:
“On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. ...
From the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could be gained by those who kept their eyes open, whose powers of perception had not yet become sclerotic, and who during four-and-a-half years had to experience the perpetual flood of enemy propaganda.
The worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda; namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with. ...
The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly that. English propaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and put what they understood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might have given rise to some doubt.
Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats. Further, the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsible for the war--which was a brutal and absolute falsehood--and the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed. ...
The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.
In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.
But in England they came to understand something further: namely, that the possibility of success in the use of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and that when employed in this way it brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.
In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest hero type. ...
I learned something that was important at that time, namely, to snatch from the hands of the enemy the weapons which he was using in his reply. I soon noticed that our adversaries, especially in the persons of those who led the discussion against us, were furnished with a definite repertoire of arguments out of which they took points against our claims which were being constantly repeated. The uniform character of this mode of procedure pointed to a systematic and unified training. And so we were able to recognize the incredible way in which the enemy's propagandists had been disciplined, and I am proud to-day that I discovered a means not only of making this propaganda ineffective but of beating the artificers of it at their own work. Two years later I was master of that art.” (Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Chapter VI)
Hitler's teacher of course, inter alia, was Edward Bernays, the founder of “Public Relations”, who opened his own seminal 1928 book, Propaganda, which described the subliminal control of man and his behavior through manipulation of the subconscious, the 'irrational mind', with these portentous words:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” (Edward Bernays, Propaganda, page 1, also see A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer, op. cit.)
The necessity of maintaining and manipulating a public's ignorance and perceptions through self-indulgences, through deliberately dumbing them down with bread and circuses, though wholly self-evident today, was already well thought out at the very dawn of the industrial age in the early eighteenth century. Bernard de Mandeville in his famous classic,The Fable of the Bees, observed:
“The economic well-being of the nation depends on the presence of a large number of men who are content to labor hard all day long. Because men are naturally lazy they will not work unless forced by necessity to do so.” (Bernard de Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees)
The philosophy espoused in The Fable of the Bees inspired Adam Smith to propose the pursuit of selfish industriousness for the overall common good – of course primarily of the ruling class with trickle-down economics, but that's just buried in the definition of common good. Patterned upon the bees collectively making that marvellous tasting honey, by each bee myopically staying busy in its own specialized micro-task, lies the entire edifice of modern civilization. This philosophy of selfish myopic industriousness for common good has been adopted to the high-tech age of modernity which requires rather specialized worker-bees, with the commensurate twist of creating educated morons with advanced university degrees who can very patriotically “United We Stand” for the common good while staying productively engaged in narrow specializations in the economy. Kept perpetually too busy, to either think independently even when capable of doing so, or to pursue knowledge outside of their narrow specializations by the sheer demands of having to pay their endless debt-bills in pursuit of their endless “American Dreams”, statecraft today relies on inflicting The Fable of the Bees upon man for its own proper functioning. Information today has been recast as knowledge, and parrots have been turned into learned savants.
A state of modern affairs which afflicts modern man quite democratically. We are, despite all the vast data on our fingertips in this Information Age, and all the sophistication of modern gadgetry, still living in the age of Jahiliya (ignorance)! This ignorance is by careful design in the industrious West, especially in the sole superpower, United States of America – as already examined by this scribe in Prisoners of the Cave here. [10] It is not just by the happenstance of knowledge explosion in modernity, as Zbigniew Brzezinski would have one believe. That, “the threat of intellectual fragmentation, posed by the gap between the pace in the expansion of knowledge and the rate of its assimilation”, is what causes general myopia in the Technetronic Era, leaving industrialized people, including the Palestinians in Diaspora who have moved to the West, quite ignorant of what matters to statecraft:
“The science explosion – the most rapidly expanding aspect of our entire reality, growing more rapidly than population, industry, and cities – intensifies, rather than reduces, these feelings of insecurity. It is simply impossible for the average citizen and even for men of intellect to assimilate and meaningfully organize the flow of knowledge for themselves. In every scientific field complaints are mounting that the torrential outpouring of published reports, scientific papers, and scholarly articles and the proliferation of professional journals make it impossible for individuals to avoid becoming either narrow gauged specialists or superficial generalists. ... The threat of intellectual fragmentation, posed by the gap between the pace in the expansion of knowledge and the rate of its assimilation, raises a perplexing question concerning the prospects for mankind's intellectual unity.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, page 15)
This paper assiduously endeavors to overcome those uncanny innate tendencies, and the hidden manipulations which exploit those innate tendencies, of projecting it “simply [being] impossible for the average citizen and even for men of intellect to assimilate and meaningfully organize the flow of knowledge for themselves”; of requiring experts to do it for the public; of learned people partaking in vicariously constructed myths and propaganda even to the point of condoning extreme violence when faced with any threat to one's world-view, whether real or imagined; as brilliantly captured by all the preceding empire builders, and amply in evidence since 911 when the most brilliant peoples gathered “United We Stand” just as in the Third Reich!
This paper consciously endeavors to overcome that deadly myopia against which Martin Luther King Jr., offered the following, and only prescription:
“In international conflicts the truth is hard to come by, because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats, are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for our superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. 'Yee shall know the truth', says Jesus, 'and the truth shall set you free.'” (Martin Luther King Jr., 1967 speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church)
And this paper does indeed overcome those “psychological cataracts” so diabolically cultivated and harvested by power, through its creation of multi-faceted Hegelian dialectics in order to seed the “high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification” that forms the core-underpinnings of “imperial mobilization”. This was coldly attested by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1996 The Grand Chessboard, and upon which is devilishly erected the entire house of cards of this Global War on Terror since the “Catastrophic Terrorism” of 911 – America's most longed for “new Pearl Harbor” to finally catalyze the process for the long planned transformation to Global Governance in a one-world government. A Catastrophic Terrorism for which the sole superpower had ostensibly prepared to protect itself against so assiduously throughout the post Cold War epoch which preceded it, just as it is now spending the post 911 epoch ostensibly protecting the Americans and its Western allies from the terrorists who did 911:
“But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization. ... More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, pages 36, 211-212)
Commensurately, in order to benefit from this paper and The Way Forward, or even to challenge it with any value added, the reader too must do the same. Understand that one is naturally beholden to one's world-view, no matter how profound or virtuous, which, one will naturally defend no matter what exposition with what evidence is set before one. Unless one consciously endeavors to overcome these “psychological cataracts” which tend to induce severe myopia, self-righteousness, and pathetic ignorance in the garb of lofty education, prestige, wealth, degrees, and applause, nothing new which is contrary to one's world-view, can ever seep in. Incestuous self-reinforcement is a state of normalcy not just at the White House in its Zionist decision making! This is entirely self-evident, but most tend to apply it to only others, not to oneself. It is always that other fellow! Know thy self in order to know the world, is more than just a cliché of the Sufis. It is a necessity for genuine learning in a modernity which subjects the public to immense forces of social engineering. Not an easy task to accomplish, for it's an on-going process to unlearn what has been spent a lifetime being taught and which has calcified in one's world-view.
Nevertheless, it is an essential process for genuine seekers of truth, for the moral harbingers of real change, including the Palestinian rebels themselves, in order for one to not go through life as a gullible patsy of power, as a virtuous moron rehearsing mainly the incantations of power while calling it dissent, as a programmed robot celebrating the scholarship of others, or as a likkha-parrha jahil (pretentious ignoramus with advanced academic degrees from IVY Leagues) leading other morons. Having suffered is not an automatic qualification for knowing what to do next. It requires careful thought, like any engineering project. And the test of thought is daily, constant, like morality, and one can't claim that Oh, I had thought in the 1960s, or “I was born with that thought”, and coast on that mileage! Saying that out loud sounds so bizarre, but it unfortunately captures the mindset of many a rebel today who prides himself on dissent – and follows the pied-pipers without analysis. The most thoughtful among this lot, in fact, have come up with a great excuse to not think: too much analysis leads to paralysis – “Just Do It”!
Do what? That's right, run on the treadmill laid out in front of one.
And one can see the results of exercises in “Just Do It” in the preceding maps of 62 years of dispossession, and where that's headed.
In my view, apart from all the other arguably good reasons, the primary reason the maps of Palestine presently look like this has been the failure to out-think and out-smart a far superior nemesis which primarily wages an uber-sophisticated war by way of deception strewn with crafty red herrings! See my analysis in Rescuing a Failed Struggle From Its Narratives – Response to Witness in Palestine, here. [11] And persisting in that way will only lead to the predicted outcome also shown in the maps!
It is a fallacy to look at the Jewish state in isolation to what's happening in the rest of the world, ignoring the unparalleled impetus towards Global Governance and global tyranny. The Zion has a singular role to play in this world, a role never enjoyed by Apartheid South Africa during the epoch in which it existed. The Jewish State will be able to maintain its Apartheid status indefinitely in the same measure as the world government will be able to maintain itself. In the words of Bertrand Russell:
“There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to follow that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.” (Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society,1951, page 37)
And we do empirically observe such a global display of monolithic force, police-states of common vintage rapidly descending like an “iron curtain” around the West. [12] If police-states can enslave billions of freedom loving Western peoples into the straight-jacket of tyranny, what's to practicably deter Zion to do it over several million? It is even far more experienced in its practice and is in fact, the teacher of others. World government and Zion share the same common prime-movers. Whereas, the cunning fallacy that an equitable binational state will be the natural outcome of the “onestate”, now that “two-state” is dead by the fiat of Zionist conquest, is being pushed by the new lauded scholarships to take over the critique of Israel from where Noam Chomsky left off in his now stale repertoire. As only an illustrative example, here [13] is the distinguished Professor John Mearsheimer, the author of the famous red herring critique of the ugly bulldog, The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, without identifying the prime-mover owners which empower its rabid bite:
“In the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians. Of course, this means that Israel faces a bleak future as a Jewish state. Let me explain why. ....” (John Mearsheimer, The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners, speaking at The Palestine Center, Washington, D.C., 29 April 2010)
Bunch of bogus but believable explanations follow, starting with the first one: “For starters, the discrimination and repression that is the essence of apartheid will be increasingly visible to people all around the world” – as if, all the horrendous bombings and burning of Palestinian children haven't been visible to the world a plenty? Is Apartheid more atrocious than what the entire world witnessed in January 2009 in Gaza? See the absurdity of Mearsheimer's implied conjecture in that statement, that the people of the world in a pang of conscience will rush to Palestine's rescue, in From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine January 16, 2009 here. [14]
John Mearsheimer's main conjecture above, “In the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state”, is sheer wishful thinking, if not outright nonsense, in no less a measure than Noam Chomsky's two-state solution has been a sheer red herring – and which mainly contributed in sewing the fait accompli for “onestate”, all-state, a mini Eretz Yisrael, today. The latter is now obvious to all and sundry by the grotesque realities on the ground. The former too will be just as obvious to celebrated pundits tomorrow, when it will sew the new fait accompli – no return of the Palestinian refugees to their home, and any Palestinians fortunate enough to survive expulsions and oppressions at ground zero, becoming the slumlords of the twenty-first century.
It is not a measure of thought to be able rehearse history like a parrot and draw shallow parallels to the present. It is, rather, in astutely preempting future history, in nullifying the acts of vile “history's actors” before they sew fait accompli, in shrewdly overcoming the diabolical war on public waged by way of deception by a thousand sayanim, as aptly captured in the pithy statement of George Bernard Shaw:
“We are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.”
Being independently thinking is a lonely business. None applauded Socrates, as one ought to remember while celebrating one's own truth tellers receiving awards, fat paychecks, and lucrative book sales. Gathering truly independent minded Socrates to focus on a common goal can only happen organically – not by celebrity appointment, or vote by democracy, or by book sales – when they each arrive at the same conclusion themselves.
In this interconnected world in which the prime-movers seek its primacy through its many incantations of visible power while staying safely hidden behind its errand boys, like Theodor Herzl's Der Judenstatd which rallied the Jews around Zionism, this paper endeavors to replace emotional sloganeering of the patriots of humanity, with political acumen rallied against the prime-movers. It replaces endless runs on the treadmills of inefficacy chasing a thousand different effects, with a focussed political goal to be measured in practicable results of actual baby-step achievements chasing the first cause, the prime-movers. The measurement is incremental success towards that goal, not wishful thinking, not applause of the mutton eaters, and not the shepherding of the butchers priming its flock for supporting the habit of mutton eaters. Just look at the preceding maps to realize the self-evident truth of this. Give me a lever long enough, and a place to rest it, and I can move the earth – that is an engineering problem, not a philosophical one. This is what the Zionist prime-movers accomplished through their triple-barrel gun – to give the devil its due – and this is what a new generation of fearless rebels among the beleaguered humanity must accomplish in order to rid ourselves of the deadly menace of the shitting-trumpeting-elephant trampling with impunity upon the entire world in broad daylight.
To remain afraid of the grotesque elephant is to court its shit in perpetual ignominy. To remain boldly unafraid of it with the moral courage and ingenuity of 'Mens et Manus' that no ubermensch can match despite their triple-barrel gun, is to avert future infamy for our progeny.
When those on ground Zero in Palestine daily exhibit this courage in a stride of existentialism, their brethren elsewhere bring only shame to themselves in their empty sloganeering and empty chest-thumping which puts to risk not an iota of hair on their head, never mind their waging a struggle of any measure of efficacy. This captures almost 99% of Palestinians in Diaspora, the majority among them being anguished bystanders like the rest of the world, too relieved to be out of the hell hole, too caught up in their daily grind to do anything but weep in silence; and a vocal minority among that lot remaining ineffectual narrators of the works of “history's actors”. This aspect of assiduously studying the shit left behind by “history's actors” as the perfect Machiavelli, is explained here. [15] Among the tiny exception of the remaining one percent Palestinians in Diaspora – like their counterpart among the tiny handful of the Jews who attended Herzl's first Zionist Congress in Basel Switzerland harboring a new vision for their Lebensraum – at least some among them must surely rise to that challenge to daily assert to themselves:
On this day I have reclaimed Palestine. If I were to proclaim it out loud, I'd be greeted with universal laughter. But in five years, surely in less than fifty, everyone will be able to return home. If only I knew how!
Well, as per the tautological promise of a Grander Power which surpasses the triple-gun of the Zionists, and which even Patrick Henry clearly understood,
“... Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves.” (Holy Qur'an, 13:11)
Patrick Henry echoed that very belief when he laid the bold foundations of breaking-away from the chains of servitude:
“... Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” (Patrick Henry, Speech March 23, 1775)
And so must the handful today, resoundingly echo the same sentiments:
“Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. ...
Our brethren are already in the field!
Why stand we here idle?
What is it that gentlemen wish?
What would they have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
Here is my little take on how. I am afraid this is only the outline. In a nut-shell, First, conclusively identify the real enemy, the Golem which hides behind the Jews' momentous weight of 3000 years of history, but is no more a Jew of Moses than any other self-proclaimed Ashkenazi. Second, rip-out its heavily protected heart; or, administer a thousand lethal cuts and prevent each one from coagulating. Let's proceed to The Way Forward.

[4] George Orwell, “1984”
Also see Sunstein, Cass R., Conspiracy Theories (January 15, 2008). Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387. PDF download from:
Also see Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, 1985; and article: The Destruction of American Education by Norman Livergood
Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 1 of 3
Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 2 of 3
Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act Part 3 of 3
Hal G. P. Colebatch, Thought police muscle up in Britain, April 21, 2009
[13] John Mearsheimer, The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners

Article IV
Rescuing a Failed Struggle From Its Narratives –

Response to Witness in Palestine : A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories

Zahir Ebrahim
November 22, 2009

Anna Baltzer Life-in-occupied-palestine Video Nov022009
Daily Show Comedy Central with Jon Stewart: Anna Baltzer and Dr. Mustafa Barghouti Part 1 of 2 October 28, 2009

Begin Transcription:
'I am Anna Baltzer.
My first reaction when I heard these things by the way was complete disbelief.
I thought there is no way, there is no way that Israel is anything different from what I believe it to be, and what I know it to be.
When I met people who told me anything different, I thought well these are perfectly nice people, but they have been brain washed. They have been told propaganda. And I set out to sort of try and prove them wrong. To show them that I knew what I was talking about.
And as soon as I began to do some research, I realized very quickly that I was the one who is missing a lot of information on this issue.
And not knowing sort of who to believe anymore, decided to go there and see with my own two eyes what was happening in Palestine.
So that's what I travel around the country telling people about is what I found there.
I hope I can offer people a combination of sort of some of the basics of what's going on there, and then also some ways of going a little bit deeper into the history, and most importantly, where we can go from here.
I like like to start out by clarifying a few different categories that can be very confusing to people in addressing this issue.
I'd like to distinguish between what it means to be Jewish: so I am Jewish what does that mean. Somebody who is Jewish is somebody either of the Jewish religion, obviously, or the Jewish lineage. My mother is Jewish, her mother is Jewish, etceteras. It's a bloodline.
And that to be Jewish is different from what it means to be Israeli: an Israeli is a citizenship, and Israeli is a citizen of the state of Israel.
And that to be Israeli is different from what it means to be a Zionist: Zionism is the political ideology that supports the idea of a Jewish state in historic Palestine, sometimes no matter what that means in reality, and no matter what it does.
Anyway, these are different categories, Jewish, Israeli, Zionist. And sometimes they overlap in the same person, but they are not the same thing.
There are Jews who are not Israeli, like myself.
There are Israelis who aren't Jewish, about 25, about 20 percent of the Israeli population is Palestinian.
There are Jews who are anti-Zionist, who say this land should be for anybody who's been living there for generations regardless of what their religion or their ethnicity is.
And then there are Zionists who aren't Jewish. The increasingly influential Christian Zionist movement, largely based in this country that talks about fueling this conflict to bring about the Armageddon, the return of the Messiah. Again, not at all pro-Jewish, right? You know what happens to Jews in the Armageddon is not about preserving Judeism, it is Zionism.
So we see this distinction and it's very important that we see that distinction and that we express it when we are talking about this issue.
First of all, because there is no reason to associate anything that Israel is doing in terms of occupation, oppression, segregation, things that were pretty sobering that I found when I was over there. These things have nothing to do with Judeism.
And likewise, to speak out when we see people's rights being violated is not anti-Jewish.
It's not anti-Semitic. In fact, it's in line with the tradition of social justice that has been the pride of Jewish people as well as many other communities for a very long time.
So I wanna start out with that, especially because I know that people talking about this issue are often, sort of, these names are called at you, and it's absolutely absurd.
There is nothing Jewish about what Israel's doing, nothing anti-Jewish about speaking out when we see it happening.'
It is not the place of a plebeian living comfortably in California in the United States of America – where no one is shooting at his family, nor demolishing his home, nor subjecting him to suffer Jews only roads nor the dehumanizing checkpoints on every mile – to critique the monumental struggle of a mighty people barely surviving a genocidal conquest of their ancestral lands, where, just to exist daily in dignity after burying one's children shot in the head is to resist, where, just to not forget without going insane is to resist, where, to fight the tanks with only stones despite the label of 'terrorist' is to resist.
And far be it for any mortal to critique the gentle Jew among a population of 20-60 million world Jewry who dares to courageously stand up for what is decent and moral, who bears witness for crimes against humanity against one's own tribe, who resolves to bring to her people the news of what she saw with her own two eyes in Palestine.
But to also not point out the palpably obvious is a travesty of both thought and justice. For, in order for the monumental struggle of the Palestinians to result in anything other than glossy book publishing, and Peace Prizes, one perhaps will have to incur the wrath of both the moralist as well as the tyrant. And so be it. I ain't writing this to win a popularity contest, to make a living from narrating other people's misery, to win elections by seeking representation, or to ingratiate myself with the victims or their moral champions. Effort is great – but on a treadmill it is wasting precious time on endless trail of red herrings.
Anna Baltzer, a wonderful human being, and Mustafa Barghouti, a courageous leader of a beleaguered people, are both riding high on platitudes. It is unfortunate that they exhibit little forensic understanding of the facts of the matter beyond the Israeli military occupation which they have lived and witnessed daily. The unvarnished and hidden only in plain-sight reality which begets the golem, at least in my view, is this, this, this, and this. [1] A thorough due diligence of the cited material and some un-emotional reflection makes the endless trail of red herrings apparent. [2] Power only respects power. Not platitudes, not appeals to morality, and not narratives.
Please keep making shocking presentations showing the brutality of the golem, keep appearing on comedy shows amidst the applause of the partisans and the curse of the zealots, it sure looks good in America. It also looks good for the Jews – one of their own angels once again boldly speaks the authentic moral voice in favor of a beleaguered humanity as “it's in line with the tradition of social justice that has been the pride of Jewish people”. Yes indeed, and as my irreverent Palestinian friend also says “We run from Jew to Jew, they create the problem, and also argue the solution, they control the full spectrum of our discourse as well as our existence.” Dismissing the Palestinian voice as being merely cynical, or irrational and requiring the Jewish authentication to have legitimacy, it's just wonderful to make colorful presentations to universities and to appear on mainstream television in America to attempt to project Palestine's misery on the American psyche.
The purpose, one of course presumes, is to inform the ignorant Americans of what's happening in Palestine so that, one logically ventures to presume again, the newly informed public with their mighty democratic vote will finally rush to alter the destiny of the Palestinian People. [3]
Sadly so, and contrary to what most people have been led to believe, lack of knowledge isn't the chain that is anchoring the superbly conscionable American public down from bringing justice to Palestine, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Lebanon, to Pakistan, and to the Grand Chessboard being played for the winner takes all high stakes gambit of one-world government. [4]
This truth should be self-evident and is easily demonstrable. Simply examine what the United States has done to Iraq in the past 8 years before its own public's eyes. That isn't at all a state-secret, nor an open secret. We have Abu Garib for instance whose pictures were splashed even in the mainstream news – far more than Jenin or Gaza ever were. We have the New York Times exposé which gallantly revealed how the Pentagon Generals created the message machine to fool the American public into supporting the invasion of Iraq on fabricated pretexts. [5] With all that knowledge before their eyes, one of course sees Main Street USA filled with American protesters demanding the hanging of their leaders after the disclosures of missing WMD, the horrendous torture of civilians, and the complete devastation of even the DNA of Mesopotamia for eons to come, right? [6]
But wait, why bother to go that far overseas searching for sympathy among the conscionable peoples of the United States of America for those untermensch 'unworthy victims' who share the same cultural baggage with the Palestinians thus automatically extending that 'unworthiness' to each other. How about their ownselves? The American protesters surely choked their nation's thoroughfares bringing business as usual to a grinding halt when the American banksters plundered their own nation through their own elected representatives before their very eyes last October, right? [7]
None of that is particularly secret as perhaps some feel that the plight of the Palestinians is from the American public. Those among them who want to know about the reality of “imperial mobilization” can easily learn so, it's not a state secret. And those who do already know, as in the aforementioned instances, well, they still continue to live on in their own dream states not only unfazed by the desecrated 'untermensch' humanity, but the theft of their own nation in plainsight hasn't motivate them a heck of a lot. Can any sensible analysis deny this grotesque reality?
The entire premise of if Americans only knew then they'd surely bring justice to the world and all will live happily ever after, has now empirically been proven to be entirely specious. [8] An absurdity. For Americans are no more or less moral than the rest of the spectating world. Including the 8 million Palestinians living in Diaspora. That is easily demonstrable by how many set sail with the courageous, courageous, former American Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney to attempt to break the blockade of Gaza with basic medicines and supplies. [9] Imagine, instead of the lonely Dignity, there were one million Dignities? In a world's population of almost 7 billion, and West's own 2 billion comfort seeking zombies and plethora of philosophers and activists, one couldn't mobilize a civilian force of conscience of 2-10 million human beings willing to risk their discomfort in sailing to Gaza to stop the genocide going on before our very eyes? Administering a medicine below its recommended dosage for the disease at hand only makes the body immune to it having no impact on the malady in much the same way as not applying sufficient imploding force to create critical mass also does not trigger the chain reaction necessary to set off a nuclear bomb. Symbolic expression no more initiates a nuclear chain reaction than gives pause for concern to the hectoring hegemons.
The shoah of the Palestinians isn't something in the yesteryear for which the “never again” vows are repeatedly taken in the halls of the Holocaust Museum. Nor is it the indescribable genocide of centuries past which colonized the land of the Native Americans before one living today was ever born. It is happening right here, right now, in our own time, and so what of it? High minded people can't be bothered with other people's existential problems other than at best, some weekend show of bravado of the conscionable and some whispered prayers of the pious! If there was efficacy in such acts, then wishes would be horses and beggars would surely be riding. But we see that this does not happen. People continue to suffer under the jackboots of the Nazis, old and new.
What worthy moralists penning narratives and/or walking the beleaguered victims safely past checkpoints don't appear to comprehend is the notion of efficacy: the difference between applying band-aids to symptoms vs. curing the systemic illness by accurately diagnosing, and then efficaciously antidoting the root cause. Perhaps deliberately. Perhaps thoughtlessly. Perhaps the flock is calculatingly misled by the multitude of priestdoms who lead them in the feel-good dissipation of their energies into red herrings and focus groups while fait accompli is seeded in its backdrop. [10] That should be self-evident. But apparently, it isn't to many.
So, in my view, when offering narratives to the public thinking that morality, or knowledge equates to action, never mind efficacy, one is either creating or chasing endless red herrings. [11]
It has certainly worked wonders for “arguably the most important intellectual alive” in selling his narratives. [12] And so too for the two hundred other Jewish voices of dissent, or perhaps the number is two thousand? Or is it twenty thousand? How many have created tax-exempt foundations, like the nemesis does, to donate all those proceeds to the Palestinian cause; used it for purchasing a newsmedia or a mainstream newspaper; set up an AIPAC, a JINSA, and one hundred think-tanks to create competing policy proposals to counter AEI's craftsmanship? And it also works great for everyone who cheers them on – for it's soothing to the conscience to run safely on the treadmill.
When peace prizes are awarded to the victims for the superlative narratives of their own, or to their exponents among their oppressor's civilization, its covetously appreciated and becomes their badge of honor. [13] The fact that they are sharing it with bloody murders doesn't seem to cross their mind, nor the fact that the whiteman is in fact mocking the 'Negro'. [14] Victims trip over themselves to welcome the new whiteman as heroes. Talk show circuits naturally follow, with more narratives to boot. And the annual Nakba commemoration is of course an event to look forward to. All the great speeches that get made there, all the slogans that are raised, and all the lofty assertions that are made.
Amidst all this energized symbolic weekend run on the treadmill for most people, and perhaps a lifestyle for a handful of others of courageously putting band-aids on visible wounds while doing little for curing the systemic disease, the only people all this wonderful dissent doesn't work for, and hasn't work for, are the bleeding Palestinians exhausting themselves out at ground Zero.
The enemy is simply far superior and far more cunning in waging a full spectrum overwhelming war by way of deception. Those on the ground see only the most overt of its instruments – the guns, the walls, but not the forces which drive them.
With no hope for any of the armed to the teeth standing armies from around the world coming to their rescue, they clutch at straws. And the Internationals, as courageous as they are in putting their own lives on the line with some like Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, and so many others, paying for their personal quest for justice with their own lives, provide that bale of straw to the Palestinians. But no solutions. Those in Diaspora are already settled someplace while admittedly still holding onto the keys to their demolished homes now left behind. And those at ground Zero in Palestine continue to suffer the privilege of great loquaciousness of their brethren in Diaspora who do indeed try to serve their former family members well from the relative safety of their new homes in the West. Their weekend protest marches, the shouting and venting anger at the Caligula, the symbolic pins, T-shirts, posters, and colorful flag-waving, etceteras, and back to the pursuit of their 'American Dream' on Monday morning, 8 am.
If this depiction offends the pious, well, the reflection in the mirror is more grotesque than the reality outside. It is our silence, our apathy, our un-courage, our co-option, our lack of skill to appreciate the diabolicalness of the enemy, to understand its sources of power, to fathom its limitless deep pockets and the fount which replenishes it, to appreciate its long range Machiavellian planning with red herrings being an integral part of its vast arsenal of waging wars by way of deception, and finally, the paucity of a superior intellect to pursue the efficacious instead of the 'glamourous', all of which entirely enables and emboldens that evil among mankind.
The “pastrami sandwich” example acutely illustrates just one instance of being out-classed in all dimensions by a far more cunning and sophisticated foe. Ariel Sharon noted to Winston Churchill III in 1973, six years into Israel's military occupation of remaining Palestine:
“We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We'll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” [15]
And the truth of those diabolical words is visible in the maps reproduced below. It is still on-going. But there is no evidence of that comprehension in anything the Palestinian leadership, or their moral supporters have proffered up since, neither at the Oslo Accord, nor at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the 'Negro' by the whiteman for his dutiful compliance with their discourse, and nor in the wonderful rehash of narratives of Anna Baltzer and Mustafa Barghouti in 2009, 36 years later. They vacuously talk of peace-peace, justice-justice, rights-rights, security-security, without betraying, at least in that appearance on American television, any understanding of the forces which drive their nemesis.
This is once again unequivocally demonstrated in these saintly closing remarks of Mustafa Barghouti, interrupting the very passionate moral voice of Anna Baltzer making the pair a fantastic must-see nourishment for the soul on American television's finest moral hour:
If I may say so, Israel has tried for sixty years the language of power, to achieve security. The only road that was not tried fully, is to have peace with Palestinians. And I am sure, this is the best guarantee for security.”
Is security what Israel wants? Yes, surely, but only after all the natives have been dispatched to their reservations or transferred out of the Holy Lands. But before then? For the past 60 years, has security been the successive Israeli governments primary quest as the learned Dr. Mustafa Barghouti played to the American audience? Or has it all along been the conquest of Palestine that every Palestinian on the ground knows as unarguable fact just as surely as the picture of their beautiful child now shot dead right through the eyes and burned alive by phosphorous bombs that puts all the Jews' hypocritical laments of Shoah to shame? [16] While Jon Stewart may be forgiven his inbred American wisdom of conveniently forgetting the parallels of how America was settled by the whiteman, all others not peering down the rabbit hole or bleating their own victimizers' mantras already know that by continually fueling conflict, taking 10 under the guise of fighting the 'barbarians' in purported self-defense, and returning 1 if the 'terrorists' behave, has been the primal modus operandi of the golem for similarly re-settling another paradise lost. [17]
The veracity of that observation too, based on the profound wisdom of David Ben Gurion: “what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times”, and the nonsensicalness of the premise uttered by the respected Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, are all self-evident in the maps below.
These maps depict the real unvarnished reality on the ground:
“However the different party maps have nothing to do with reality, a fact well known to the people who drafted them. The maps were produced to feed addiction (a) of the populace. This is virtual reality. The actual reality on the ground has been created continuously, consistently and deliberately, since 1967, by all Israeli governments, Labor, Likud and Kadima.” [18]
That is precisely why Palestinians have continually lost their struggle to wonderful narratives, to chest beating, chest thumping, and intellectualizing their moral struggle in poetry and songs, photographs and theater, to Peace processes and Accords, to maps handed them by their victimizers, and ultimately, to even using the vocabulary and constructs of the occupiers themselves to describe their own victimhood, all of which is dutifully rewarded with more land loss, and more peace prizes for playing the fool.
One ventures to predict that Anna Baltzer's poignant book is slated for a Pulitzer Prize for sure, or at least the Orwell Prize like native Palestinian Raja Shehadeh's acute narrative 'Palestinian Walks' in 2008. [19] If this chap, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti keeps up this charade before the West, keeps selling out his own long suffering people by spewing red herrings crafted for him by the whiteman, there is surely a peace prize in it for him as well. Perhaps these accolades have already been issued, just awaiting public announcement – as the map of Israel in Palestine rapidly reaches its final completion while Eretz Yisrael continues to be worked on in parallel.
To put some real efficacy to the resistance before fait accompli entirely seals the Palestinians' fate, and it's almost there, genuinely concerned people are gonna have to bite the bullet even at this late stage of conquest and go where neither the Palestinians, nor their moral exponents have shown any inclination to go. To the very DNA of Der Judenstat's strength.
Because, as with the secret of Samson's indomitable strength, this golem's hidden source of power lies deceptively elsewhere! [20] Not in Israel. Not in the White House, and not in the U.S. Congress. We have already seen them all bow together before another higher power with our very own eyes.
And that is the real Samson Option! Want to get rid of the golem? You gonna have to pay in spades by seeking and cutting off its locks. To do so requires skills, expertise, and resources often un-possessed by the ordinary plebeians rising to support the beleaguered victims. All we can do is make speeches, write books, and appear on talk shows. All the victims can do is to exist to resist. And all their leadership can do is to find new ways to be co-opted. That's how they live longer, more willing they are to become the 'Negro' of Martin Luther King's scorn. [21] Without taking on the DNA with resources to back up the effort in a full spectrum assault to overwhelm their senses and their resources just as they do ours, all this dissent is a wonderful waste of precious time. It only helps the victimizers.

Palestine 1948

Plands Palestine_map_1948_eng

From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine

Time once seeded to fait accompli, simply becomes impractical to reverse. Time is Zionism's best friend. Just look at the map and one can see it. All the while one is wasting it in not effectively addressing the root of the matter, newer generation of Zionists are born on that soil claiming birth-right. And newer victims are fed to the golem, but not just in Palestine. The world has brazenly and complicitly witnessed Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the emerging arc of crisis in the Global Zone of Percolating Violence as annotated by Zbigniew Brzezinski before any crisis had materialized way back in 1996. The People of the United States themselves are the newest victims to behold. They all share the same common enemy.
Next time you make your outstanding presentations Anna, Mustafa, go there – show How Zionistan is the banksters' private baby for which they diabolically harness both the 'left' and the 'right' from amongst the Jews. Show how the name to which the Balfour Declaration is addressed controls the world through their full spectrum control of world's finance and resources, and what its remaining agenda is. Show in whose palace the Treaty of Versailles was signed which spelled the real beginning of end of Palestine for its indigenous peoples. Show why and how it has not been an idle boast of the godfathers: “give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws”. Unmask their secret role in being the real financiers of Der Judenstat, and by virtue of their full spectrum control of the West's politicians, including those in the United States, of being the real prime-movers behind the primacy of Zionism and the criminal dispossession and systematic eradication of the Palestinian populations from their own ancestral lands.
If fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his soul from his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace prizes plus compensation, in order to administer hanging and extraction of restitution as the graduated scale of ultimate punishment for the ultimate prime-movers of all wars and pestilence before which their errand boys' and patsies' crimes against humanity pale in comparison. [22]
Go for the jugular of the Zionists' hidden only in plainsight source of strength today by seeking the billions, or even the paltry millions from your wealthy kin and funding multi-spectrum legal assault across the world and across the board upon the first harbingers of world's misery – just as the Zionists won Der Judenstat by legal means, even if only by a sovereign's word.
And watch your own world crumble around you for taking on the real source of Samson's power, far quicker than what Israel has done to the Palestinian people.
That's why no one of any prominence with anything to lose treads there. That's why even the heavily protected past American Presidents have had their brains blown out, or attempted to be blown out, when they tread too close to that forbidden path. But if enough people of means and worldly wherewithal go there together with wit, courage, and play like grandmasters in a team rather than shocked idealists on a moral mission chasing 1000 red herrings, then, and only then, an effective battle will finally be waged against the real power source which fuels the golem. When such an effective struggle is genuinely waged, the final outcome will surely not be scripted as it entirely is at the present time.
The battle goes to those who can best out maneuver their opponent, as in Jujitsu, as in Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope against George Forman, rather than always to the stronger. As Patrick Henry put it:
“Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” [23]
That only works for battles with real teeth in them, and before fait accompli cements the outcome. Today, no native American can do anything except live on in memory.
Thank you.
[1] Zahir Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the Nakba May 15, 2008
Zahir Ebrahim, At What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'! Oct. 14, 2009
Zahir Ebrahim, Is Zionism a sophisticated Hegelian Dialectic? Sept. 06, 2009
[2] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
[3] Zahir Ebrahim, Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy! Oct. 22, 2008
[4] Zahir Ebrahim, Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government' Dec. 11, 2008
[5] DAVID BARSTOW, NYT, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand, April 20, 2008
[6] Zahir Ebrahim, America’s Shame, Preface to Prisoners of the Cave, 2003,
Zahir Ebrahim, Why Bluff Martial Law? Oct. 03, 2008
Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, 2003, Chapter 3 Is Democracy Inimical To Empire Building?
[9] CNN, Cynthia McKinney on Israel's Ramming of The Dignity, December 30, 2008 Quote: “Well, I wouldn't call it accosting, I would call it ramming. Let's just call it as it is”,
[10] George W. Bush, Quote: “It's like deciding – well I am going to decide policy based upon a focus group”, cited in Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, Chapter 7
Zahir Ebrahim, Manufacturing Dissent: Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science June 01, 2008
[11] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
[12] Peter Schweizer, Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, 2006
[13] Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Guardian: 2008 Orwell Prize for the Palestinian Narrative of Nakba May 03, 2008
Jeff Halper in Canada Nobel Prize Nominee and Israeli Peace Activist Speaking on the Siege of Gaza, January 22, 2009
[14] Zahir Ebrahim, The Answer to the Burning Question du jour: Why was President Obama Gifted the Nobel Peace Prize? How to win the Nobel Peace Prize October 09, 2009
A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King (Jr.), pg. 307
Quote: “The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man's contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man's representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him.”
[15] From George S. Hishmeh, Special to The Daily Star, July 18, 2002. Cited in 'What for?' by Victoria Buch, Occupation Magazine, 22 April 2006
Quote: “Winston S. Churchill III, grandson of the famed British prime minister, recalled last October at the National Press Club here a telling encounter he had had in 1973 with the hawkish Ariel Sharon, now the Israeli prime minister, about Zionist objectives. “What is to become of the Palestinians?” Churchill asked. “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them,” Sharon said. Churchill responded, “What?” “Yes, we’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”
[16] Zahir Ebrahim, From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine January 16, 2009
Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Palestinians' fate worse than Shoah! Jan 09, 2009
[17] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
Zahir Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the Nakba May 15, 2008
[18] Victoria Buch, Occupation Magazine, 22 April 2006, Op. cit.
[19] Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Guardian: 2008 Orwell Prize for the Palestinian Narrative of Nakba May 03, 2008
[20] From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish! Nov. 19, 2009
At What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'!, Oct. 14, 2009
[21] Martin Luther King. Op. cit.
[22] Zahir Ebrahim, Who is more guilty of monumental war crimes – the prime-movers or trigger pullers? April 09, 2009
Anna Baltzer's videos embedded at the beginning of this article:
Anna Baltzer & Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart -Recorded Wednesday, October 28, 2009, original URL:,
watch here:

Published Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:00 pm
Added Addendum Thursday, December 21, 2017, 11:00 pm
Added Addendum-II Postscript January 30, 2018, 1:00 am
Report Last Modified and PDF Generated January 30, 2018 01:00 am 52209 52511

Jerusalem: Reality vs Impracticality – The Protection Racket of the Jewish State 140 Zahir Ebrahim | Project